Hi all, Kindly ignore this message. It was sent in wrong format. Sorry for the noise Regards, Gururaja On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:26:57, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote: > Below is the code snippet I was referring to > > > From drivers/rtc/rtc-omap.c > > static struct platform_device_id omap_rtc_devtype[] = { > { > .name = DRIVER_NAME, > }, > [OMAP_RTC_DATA_AM3352_IDX] = { > .name = "am3352-rtc", > .driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER | OMAP_RTC_HAS_IRQWAKEEN, > }, > [OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX] = { > .name = "da830-rtc", > .driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER, > }, > {}, > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, omap_rtc_devtype); > > static const struct of_device_id omap_rtc_of_match[] = { > { .compatible = "ti,da830-rtc", > .data = &omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX], > }, > { .compatible = "ti,am3352-rtc", > .data = &omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_AM3352_IDX], > }, > {}, > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, omap_rtc_of_match); > > > From arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx.dtsi > > rtc@44e3e000 { > compatible = "ti,da830-rtc", "ti,am3352-rtc"; > reg = <0x44e3e000 0x1000>; > interrupts = <75 > 76>; > ti,hwmods = "rtc"; > }; > > > As seen from above snippet, 2 compatible items are specified for > compatible dt property (ti,da830-rtc" & "ti,am3352-rtc”) > These are the same compatibles that are mentioned in the of_device_id > structure inside rtc-omap driver. > > What I observed is, if we mention both compatible in the .dtsi file that > are under one single of_device_id structure, the first match from the > of_device_id structure is considered (ti,da830-rtc in above case) > > To confirm, I switched the 2 compatible inside of_device_id structure as > below > > > static const struct of_device_id omap_rtc_of_match[] = { > { .compatible = "ti,am3352-rtc", > .data = &omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_AM3352_IDX], > }, > { .compatible = "ti,da830-rtc", > .data = &omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX], > }, > {}, > }; > > In this case, the first match from compatible field was chosen > (ti,am3352-rtc now). > > > Hope this is clear. > > Kindly let me know when you are free to discuss. > > > Regards > Gururaja > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nori, Sekhar > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:47 AM > > To: Hebbar, Gururaja > > Cc: khilman@xxxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx; Cousson, Benoit; linux- > > omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > davinci-linux-open-source@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bedia, Vaibhav; > > Rajashekhara, Sudhakar; Grant Likely; Rob Herring; Rob Landley; > > Alessandro Zummo; rtc-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rtc: omap: add rtc wakeup support to > > alarm events > > > > > > > > On 7/2/2013 11:41 AM, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:39:28, Nori, Sekhar wrote: > > >> On 7/2/2013 11:34 AM, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:32:34, Nori, Sekhar wrote: > > >>>> On 6/28/2013 3:05 PM, Hebbar Gururaja wrote: > > >>>>> On some platforms (like AM33xx), a special register > > (RTC_IRQWAKEEN) > > >>>>> is available to enable Alarm Wakeup feature. This register > > needs to be > > >>>>> properly handled for the rtcwake to work properly. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Platforms using such IP should set "ti,am3352-rtc" in rtc > > device dt > > >>>>> compatibility node. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Hebbar Gururaja <gururaja.hebbar@xxxxxx > <mailto:gururaja.hebbar@xxxxxx> > > > >>>>> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>> Cc: Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>> Cc: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@xxxxxx <mailto:nsekhar@xxxxxx> > > > >>>>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >>>>> Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@xxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:a.zummo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>> Cc: rtc-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:rtc-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Cc: devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> --- > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>>> -#define OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX 1 > > >>>>> +#define OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX 1 > > >>>>> +#define OMAP_RTC_DATA_AM335X_IDX 2 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> static struct platform_device_id omap_rtc_devtype[] = { > > >>>>> { > > >>>>> @@ -309,6 +321,9 @@ static struct platform_device_id > > omap_rtc_devtype[] = { > > >>>>> }, { > > >>>>> .name = "da830-rtc", > > >>>>> .driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER, > > >>>>> + }, { > > >>>>> + .name = "am335x-rtc", > > >>>> > > >>>> may be use am3352-rtc here just to keep the platform device > > name and of > > >>>> compatible in sync. > > >>> > > >>> Correct. I will update the same in v2. > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> + .driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER | > > OMAP_RTC_HAS_IRQWAKEEN, > > >>>>> }, > > >>>>> {}, > > >>>> > > >>>> It is better to use the index defined above in the static > > initialization > > >>>> so they remain in sync. > > >>> > > >>> Sorry. I didn’t get this. > > >>> > > >> > > >> See example below I provided. If its still not clear, let me > > know what > > >> is not clear. > > >> > > >>>> ... > > >>>> [OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX] = { > > >>>> .name = "da830-rtc", > > >>>> .driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER, > > >>>> }, > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. In this case will it ok if I > > update the previous > > > member also. > > > > You dont really reference [0] in omap_rtc_of_match[] so even if > > you > > leave it as-is, that's fine with me. I am mostly concerned with > > the > > index definitions and initialization order being out of sync and > > that's > > really not an issue with [0]. > > > > Thanks, > > Sekhar > ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����*jg��������ݢj����G�������j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥