Re: [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: rtc: stm32: add alarm A out property to select output

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Alexandre,

On 5/4/22 22:27, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
Hello,

On 04/05/2022 15:06:13+0200, Valentin Caron wrote:
STM32 RTC can pulse some SOC pins when an alarm of RTC expires.

This patch adds property to activate alarm A output. The pulse can
output on three pins RTC_OUT1, RTC_OUT2, RTC_OUT2_RMP
(PC13, PB2, PI8 on stm32mp15) (PC13, PB2, PI1 on stm32mp13).

Signed-off-by: Valentin Caron <valentin.caron@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml
index 56d46ea35c5d..71e02604e8de 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml
@@ -59,6 +59,13 @@ properties:
        Refer to <include/dt-bindings/rtc/rtc-stm32.h> for the supported values.
        Pinctrl state named "default" may be defined to reserve pin for RTC output.
+ st,alarm:
+    $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32"
+    description: |
+      To select and enable RTC Alarm A output.
+      Refer to <include/dt-bindings/rtc/rtc-stm32.h> for the supported values.
+      Pinctrl state named "default" may be defined to reserve pin for RTC output.
+
  allOf:
    - if:
        properties:
@@ -75,6 +82,9 @@ allOf:
          st,lsco:
            maxItems: 0
+ st,alarm:
+          maxItems: 0
+
          clock-names: false
required:
@@ -95,6 +105,9 @@ allOf:
          st,lsco:
            maxItems: 0
+ st,alarm:
+          maxItems: 0
+
        required:
          - clock-names
          - st,syscfg
@@ -117,6 +130,9 @@ allOf:
          st,lsco:
            maxItems: 1
+ st,alarm:
+          maxItems: 1
+
        required:
          - clock-names
@@ -153,8 +169,9 @@ examples:
        clocks = <&rcc RTCAPB>, <&rcc RTC>;
        clock-names = "pclk", "rtc_ck";
        interrupts = <GIC_SPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+      st,alarm = <RTC_OUT1>;
        st,lsco = <RTC_OUT2_RMP>;
Shouldn't that be exactly the opposite? You have two pins that can
output different functions. The property should be the pin and the value
the function. I'd go even further and I would say this is actually
pinmuxing.

You're right, if the property is the pin and the value the function, this looks like a pinctrl node. We choose to develop theses functionalities in the reverse order, to avoid the complexity of adding the pinctrl framework to our driver. Moreover, LSCO and AlarmA may haven't a peripheral client and
this would probably require to also implement pinctrl hogging.

Is the implementation that we have proposed is acceptable regarding theses elements ?

Thank you,
Valentin




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux