On 13 December 2022 20:18:55 EET, Eric Chanudet <echanude@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:18:00AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi
>> >index 34fc72896761..af761dbfbc66 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi
>> >+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi
>> >@@ -13,6 +13,14 @@ pm8450a: pmic@0 {
>> > #address-cells = <1>;
>> > #size-cells = <0>;
>> >
>> >+ rtc@6000 {
>> >+ compatible = "qcom,pm8941-rtc";
>> >+ reg = <0x6000>;
>> >+ reg-names = "rtc", "alarm";
>> >+ interrupts = <0x0 0x61 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>;
>>
>>
>> 0x60?
>
>Checking downstream it uses 0x61 for the ppid. This is also the case
>for all other descriptions of that RTC I could find. On the other hand,
>that does not describe the "alarm" register bank at 0x6100.
>Should it be added, if anything to match reg-names?
Definitely yes. I think otherwise it breaks the idea of reg-names.
>
>I tried a quick test of the alarm on sa8540p-ride:
>$ echo $(date '+%s' -d '+ 10 seconds') > /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm
>It logged the interrupt:
>172: 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pmic_arb 101777441 Edge pm8xxx_rtc_alarm
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
