On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 08:44:26AM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> On 10/16/24 2:42 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> >> Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP.
> >> Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not
> >> possible.
> >>
> >> Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform.
> >
> > An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that
> > as an indicator.
>
> That wouldn't be right, the registers/interrupt still exist and should
> be described in DT.
Yeah, the registers are still there, and are probably readable too
(IIRC), but the OS will never receive any interrupts.
> (if you have firmware that allows access to the alarm, now you only have
> to delete the qcom,no-alarm property in your dts to use it)
Fair enough. And the new flag mirrors the old.
> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@xxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> >> index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> >> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc {
> >> struct rtc_device *rtc;
> >> struct regmap *regmap;
> >> bool allow_set_time;
> >> + bool no_alarm;
> >
> > How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid
> > the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)?
> >
>
> My reasoning is that the DT flag has to be negative, and its better to
> use the same name as the DT flag, but inverting it is OK.
I agree about the dt parameter, but I still I prefer a non-negated
variable (similar to allow_set_time).
> >> int alarm_irq;
> >> const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
> >> struct device *dev;
> >> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
> >> return -ENXIO;
> >>
> >> - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> >> - return -ENXIO;
> >> + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
> >> + "qcom,no-alarm");
> >> +
> >
> > Stray newline.
> >
>
> That's not a stray newline?
There was no empty line between the assignment and check before this
change, but now there is even though there should not be.
> >> + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> >> + rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> + if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> >> + return -ENXIO;
> >> + }
Johan
