On 30/05/2023 19:39:50+0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof:
>
> LS7A bridge chip can be considered as a combination of South and North
> bridge. Generally, it will be connected to the Loongson-3 series CPUs.
> LS2K500/LS2K1000/LS2K2000 refers to the LS2K series embedded CPU chip.
>
> Therefore, from the understanding of the driver code, I don't think it
> is appropriate to fallback them together. Please pardon me if this
> view does not apply to dt-binding.
>
> If fallback is necessary, can we have this:
>
> Let ls7a remain a separate item.
>
> "loongson,ls1b-rtc"
> "loongson,ls1c-rtc", "loongson,ls1b-rtc"
Based on Keguang's feedback, "loongson,ls1b-rtc" is not a fallback for
"loongson,ls1c-rtc" as it is missing registers, keep it standalone.
> "loongson,ls7a-rtc"
> "loongson,ls2k0500-rtc"
> "loongson,ls2k2000-rtc", "loongson,ls2k0500-rtc"
> "loongson,ls2k1000-rtc"
>
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls1b-rtc", .data = &ls1x_rtc_config }
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls7a-rtc", .data = &generic_rtc_config }
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls2k0500-rtc", .data = &generic_rtc_config }
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls2k1000-rtc", .data = &ls2k1000_rtc_config }
>
> Thanks.
> Binbin
>
> >
> > >
> > > Which one do you think is more suitable for us?
> >
> > Use fallbacks for some. You pointed difference in alarm for ls1x, right?
> > If so, then they can stay separate.
> >
> > ls2k500 and ls2k2000 seem compatible with each other so should use fallback.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> >
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
