On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:03:12AM +0100, Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
> Hi Gregory,
>
> Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > The Marvell Armada 38x SoCs contains an RTC which differs from the RTC
> > used in the other mvebu SoCs until now. This commit adds the Device
> > Tree description of this interface at the SoC level.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
> > index 04fe80d101f8..22909add8889 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-38x.dtsi
> > @@ -466,6 +466,12 @@
> > clocks = <&gateclk 4>;
> > };
> >
> > + rtc@184a8 {
> > + compatible = "marvell,armada-380-rtc";
> > + reg = <0xa3800 0x20>, <0x184a0 0x0c>;
> > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 21 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > + };
> > +
>
> Out of curiosity, why not naming the node rtc@a3800? Main argument:
> least expectation principle when reading the .dtsi and expecting
> increasing addresses. Or did I miss sth else?
Actually, the ePAPR even states that the unit-adress must be the first
address in reg (section 2.2.1.1 of the ePAPR 1.1)
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
