On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 4:40 PM Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 30/05/2023 10:17:43+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 29/05/2023 10:31, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Suggestion was about the bindings. Not in the driver. I never said to
> > list all compatibles in the driver...
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > I would suggest to use fallbacks as suggested by Conor at least for some
> > of them. You referred to my previous comments about wildcards.
> > Wildcard != fallback.
> >
> > >
> > > And Conor thought it should be rendered using a fallback compatible
> > > form based on ".data".
> >
> > Based on common (compatible) programming model unless you already have
> > clear hardware differences making them incompatible.
> >
> > >
> > > "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.
> >
> > ??? How is it impossible? For all other SoCs and architectures it is
> > possible, so what is special for Loongson?
> >
> > > Also, for example, "ls7a" is a bridge chip, while
> > > "ls2k2000"/"ls2k0500" are soc chips, and it seems inappropriate to
> > > integrate them into one item.
> >
> > Why it is inappropriate? I don't see the issue here... what is a
> > "bridge" chip? Isn't this also an SoC?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Which one do you think is more suitable for us?
> >
> > Use fallbacks for some. You pointed difference in alarm for ls1x, right?
> > If so, then they can stay separate.
>
> From what I seen the IP and register set is the same, it is just the
> integration on the SoC that differs.
>
Actually, ls1c RTC registers are not the same as ls1b.
ls1c doesn't have the following resgisters.
+#define TOY_MATCH0_REG 0x34 /* TOY timing interrupt 0 */
+#define TOY_MATCH1_REG 0x38 /* TOY timing interrupt 1 */
+#define TOY_MATCH2_REG 0x3c /* TOY timing interrupt 2 */
+#define RTC_CTRL_REG 0x40 /* TOY and RTC control register */
+#define RTC_TRIM_REG 0x60 /* Must be initialized to 0 */
+#define RTC_WRITE0_REG 0x64 /* RTC counters value (write-only) */
+#define RTC_READ0_REG 0x68 /* RTC counters value (read-only) */
+#define RTC_MATCH0_REG 0x6c /* RTC timing interrupt 0 */
+#define RTC_MATCH1_REG 0x70 /* RTC timing interrupt 1 */
+#define RTC_MATCH2_REG 0x74 /* RTC timing interrupt 2 */
As you can see, it doesn't support match function, which is why ls1c
doesn't support RTC interrupt.
>
> --
> Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
--
Best regards,
Keguang Zhang
