On Tuesday 16 December 2014 13:54:04 Arun Ramamurthy wrote: > On 14-12-16 12:27 PM, Ray Jui wrote: > > On 12/16/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > >> It sounds like CRMU is some other unit aside from the RTC. Could this > >> be something like a generic system controller? I think it should > >> either have its own driver or use the syscon logic if that is what > >> this is. > >> > > Giving that CRMU has scattered, miscellaneous control logic for multiple > > different peripherals, it probably makes more sense to use the syscon > > logic here. > > > Arnd, thanks for the feedback. If I was to write a separate driver for > the CRMU, I would have to export certain functions and create an api > that only this RTC driver would use. I am not sure that is efficient or > required. What is your opinion? > Would it be better if I use the syson api in my current driver and move > the CRMU registers to separate syscon device tree entry? > This is something that's normally up to the platform maintainers, depending on what works best for a given SoC. If you have a control block that wants to export the same high-level API for multiple drivers, that's fine, but if literally every register does something different, a syscon driver works best. It's also possible that some of the functions of the CRMU already have abstractions, like system-reset, device-reset, regulator or clock support. In that case, you can still use syscon but have the more other drivers use that for accessing the registers. Arnd -- 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
