On 23/01/2024 11:40, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 23/01/24 09:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
On 22/01/2024 18:40, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 22.01.2024 14:19, Matthias Brugger wrote:
On 22/01/2024 13:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
This helps validating DTS files. Introduced changes:
1. Reworded title
2. Dropper redundant properties descriptions
3. Added required #include and adjusted "reg" in example
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
.../devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc-mt2712.txt | 14 -------
2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml
delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc-mt2712.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml
In this schema can easily fit "mediatek,mt7622-rtc", so how about renaming
it and add reference for that RTC as well?
I see your point but by looking at existing Linux drivers:
drivers/rtc/rtc-mt2712.c
drivers/rtc/rtc-mt7622.c
it seems like quite different hardware blocks.
Different registers, different programming, clk in MT7622.
Should they really share a YAML binding just because they use similar
properties?
Hardware aspect matters more, including features not yet present in the
binding, like some power on/off control. Different clock inputs is also
an argument.
I agree - those IPs are different, we should have two bindings for the two
(very) different IP versions.
Makes sense. Then for this patch:
Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx>
