Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu no dia segunda, 27/07/2020 à(s) 18:30: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:16:32PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 27/07/2020 17:55:50+0200, Jon Nettleton wrote: > > > > So, can we please have that discussion, it is pertinent to this patch. > > > > > > > > > > Thinking about this some more, I believe whether or not an IOCTL > > > interface is in the works or needed is irrelevant. This patch > > > describes the hardware and how it is designed and the topic of > > > discussion is if we need a simple boolean state, or if we need > > > something that could be used to support dynamic configuration in the > > > future. I would rather make this decision now rather than keep > > > tacking on boolean config options, or revisit a bunch of device-tree > > > changes. For what it's worth I also tend to agree. The patchset, regardless of the property name (that I admit might be misleading), is intended at enforcing a mode that the RTC/driver should use by default. This mode is strongly related to the hardware definition/implementation and its capabilities. While I understand the need for the IOCTL interface to solve issues exactly like the aforementioned factory example, I fail to see how it can be of any help to solve the problem at hand - as it won't likely configure the driver to use a different default mode depending on the board. The IOCTL interface might also allow the userspace to change this property back to the default mode (000) and end up breaking the RTC operation, but I guess that's the cost of configurability and, in the end, the user's responsibility. Any pointers on how to proceed are appreciated. Regards, Miguel
