Hi Krzysztof:
Excuse me.
We have different opinions on how to better describe rtc-loongson compatible.
Based on my previous communication with you, I think we should list
all the Socs in the driver and drop the wildcards.
This should be clearer and more straightforward:
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls1b-rtc", .data = &ls1x_rtc_config
}, //ls1b soc
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls1c-rtc", .data = &ls1x_rtc_config
}, //ls1c soc
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls7a-rtc", .data =
&generic_rtc_config }, //ls7a bridge chip
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls2k0500-rtc", .data =
&generic_rtc_config }, // ls2k0500 soc
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls2k2000-rtc", .data =
&generic_rtc_config }, // ls2k2000 soc
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls2k1000-rtc", .data =
&ls2k1000_rtc_config }, // ls2k1000 soc
And Conor thought it should be rendered using a fallback compatible
form based on ".data".
"loongson,ls1b-rtc"
"loongson,ls1c-rtc", "loongson,ls1b-rtc"
"loongson,ls7a-rtc"
"loongson,ls2k0500-rtc", "loongson,ls7a-rtc"
"longson,ls2k2000-rtc", "longson,ls7a-rtc"
"loonson,ls2k1000-rtc"
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls1b-rtc", .data = &ls1x_rtc_config }
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls7a-rtc", .data = &generic_rtc_config }
{ .compatible = "loongson,ls2k1000-rtc", .data = &ls2k1000_rtc_config }
In this form, I think it might not be possible to show very
graphically which chips are using the driver.
Also, for example, "ls7a" is a bridge chip, while
"ls2k2000"/"ls2k0500" are soc chips, and it seems inappropriate to
integrate them into one item.
Which one do you think is more suitable for us?
Here is the link to our discussion:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rtc/E229B204-1B00-4B24-B4BF-15277682FB4B@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m6c1ae9b74fceafc4042f7598b1bc594e68e5ec76
Thanks.
Binbin
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 2:24 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29 May 2023 03:59:57 IST, Keguang Zhang <keguang.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 6:22 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:59:48PM +0100, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
> >> > > 2023年5月27日 17:23，Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> 写道：
> >> > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 05:13:39PM +0100, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> My recommendation is leaving compatible string as is.
> >> > >
> >> > > "as is" meaning "as it is right now in Linus' tree", or "as it is in
> >> > > this patch"?
> >> >
> >> > Ah sorry I meant in this patch.
> >> >
> >> > Since there won’t be any new ls1x chip that will boot Linux any time soon (due to
> >> > Loongson move away from MIPS but LoongArch32 is undefined for now), and
> >> > rest compatible strings are wide enough to cover their family, I think the present
> >> > compatible strings in this patch describes hardware best.
> >>
> >> I don't see why new bindings being written for old hardware should somehow
> >> be treated differently than new bindings for new hardware.
> >
> >Let me add that ls1b RTC and ls1c RTC are not exactly the same.
> >The former supports RTC interrupt, while the latter does not.
> >So my suggestion is to leave the compatible string as it is in this patch.
>
> Just as a reminder, there are more than ls1b & c in the patch, lest we forget.
> Also, fallback compatibles mean a compatible subset, not only that two devices are identical.
> The interrupt is passed by the interrupts property.
>
