On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:39:42 +0200 Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:55:59AM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > > > Johan, let me know if this version addresses part of your concerns. > > Looks good to me. I just have a few minor comments on two of the patches. > > > I'm open to any suggestion/rework to address other previously discussed > > issues, as long as it does not end up in a dead-end (like the discussion > > you had last year): > > - the fact that the RTT block could be used for something that is not > > an RTC > > - the fact that referencing the GPBR node and defining a GPBR register > > number to store RTC time info could be considered as an HW config and > > not an HW description and thus should not be described in the DT > > No doubt. Okay then. Any suggestion to do otherwise ? Alexandre suggested to pass the GPBR register number through a module parameter, and retrieve the GPBR syscon by searching for a gpbr node (or atmel,at91sam9260-gpbr compatible node) in the device tree. I'm not a big fan of this solution, as it implies passing driver specific config to the global cmdline (and we'll have to handle the 9263 case where 2 RTT blocks are availables). Best Regards, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
