On 13/04/2020 08:50:02+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > part of 1/5 is still necessary. > indeed. > Regarding the fallback to "atmel,at91sam9260-rtt" I am aware of that. I > chose this approach because this IP is a bit different than the one with > "atmel,at91sam9260-rtt" compatible, meaning it has a features that the old > one has not. I'm talking about [1] which I cannot see on a SAM9G45 [2] > where RTT IP uses "atmel,at91sam9260-rtt" as compatible. > > Is true it may be necessary in the future when new features may be > implemented. Taking this into account, would you like to get rid of the new > compatible in code and keep it only in device tree? > What I said is not that the new compatible is not necessary at all but that it can be avoided in the aic code. > [1] > http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/SAM9X60-Data-Sheet-DS60001579B.pdf#_OPENTOPIC_TOC_PROCESSING_d137e64502 > [2] > http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/Atmel-6438-32-bit-ARM926-Embedded-Microprocessor-SAM9G45_Datasheet.pdf > > > > > I think 2/5 may be useful in the future but as far as the aic fixup > > is concerned, both IPs are identical. > > > >> - reg: should encode the memory region of the RTT controller > >> - interrupts: rtt alarm/event interrupt > >> - clocks: should contain the 32 KHz slow clk that will drive the RTT block. > >> -- > >> 2.7.4 > >> > > > > -- > > Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin > > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > > https://bootlin.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > > -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
