Hi Matthias,
On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 01:49AM +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> Add binding documentation for the General Porpose Timer driver of
> the Mediatek SoCs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/timer/mediatek,mtk-timer.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/mediatek,mtk-timer.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/mediatek,mtk-timer.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/mediatek,mtk-timer.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d0f2df3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/mediatek,mtk-timer.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +Mediatek MT6589, MT6577 and MT6572 Timers
> +---------------------------------------
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: Should be "mediatek,mtk6589-timer"
> +- reg: Should contain location and length for timers register.
> +- clocks: phandle to the clock source; the first refers to a 13 MHz fixed
> + system clock and the second handle to a 32 KHz fixed RTC
> + clock.
Are these frequencies mandatory to the timer or an implementation
detail of the SOC you're working with? I suspect, it might be possible
to see the same timer in a different SOC implementation with different
frequencies? In that case - or probably in general - the frequencies
should not be part of the binding, IMHO.
> +
> +Examples:
> +
> + timer {
> + compatible = "mediatek,mtk6589-timer";
> + reg = <0x10008000 0x80>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 113 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
> + clocks = <&system_clk>, <&rtc_clk>;
Might be just my personal preference, but you could also add the clock-names
property which would relax the ordering requirement a bit and would
clearly identify the IP's clocks.
Sören
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
