On 21/03/2023 10:03, Julien Panis wrote: > > > On 3/21/23 08:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/03/2023 17:35, Julien Panis wrote: >>> >>> On 3/20/23 16:53, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:07:33PM +0100, Julien Panis wrote: >>>>> TPS6594 is a Power Management IC which provides regulators and others >>>>> features like GPIOs, RTC, watchdog, ESMs (Error Signal Monitor), and >>>>> PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine) managing the state of the >>>>> device. >>>>> TPS6594 is the super-set device while TPS6593 and LP8764X are derivatives. >>>> As mentioned, the binding needs to be complete. It's missing GPIO at >>>> least. RTC and watchdog may or may not need binding changes. >>> Thank you for your feedback. >>> >>> About GPIO, do you speak about 'gpio-controller' >>> and/or '#gpio-cells' properties ? >> Yes. >> >>> For RTC (and for watchdog, once the driver will be >>> implemented), our driver do not require any node >>> to work. What could make an explicit instantiation >>> necessary in DT ? >> Properties from RTC schema, e.g. start-year, wakeup etc. > > TPS6594 RTC driver is being reviewed (this is another patch > series, not merged yet). These properties are not used by our > driver, that's why we did not have to add some RTC node in > the DT (until now, using such properties in our driver was not > requested by RTC sub-system maintainers). Bindings should be complete, regardless whether you now need this in driver or not. Does your comment mean that you will never need these, because hardware does not support them, and never going to add? Otherwise I don't get why you refer to driver when we talk about bindings... Best regards, Krzysztof
