Hi Geert, > > Would this binding allow to not use the RTC if the second reg is > > missing? What are the advantages of not enabling RTC? Saving power? > > It doesn't work if there is no clock? Maybe I am confusing something now, but if the RTC _needs_ to be enabled, then why we don't do it unconditionally? > > Thinking more about this: DT is hardware description, so the RTC should > > always be described in DT. If the RTC is actually activated is more a > > configuration thing, or? Brainstorming: maybe the PMIC driver could try > > to find the node with reg == 0x6f and see if firmware has enabled it or > > not? > > I guess the RTC part would acknowledge anyway? > It is always present, it is just part of the RAA215300. I mean the driver should scan for the DT node. Not on the bus. But a phandle is probably safer. > Sure, you can put that in DT. But it's a pity you have to do that, > as the device (the PMIC part) does know the revision... > That's why I suggested to let the PMIC part instantiate an i2c ancillary > device... I see. I'll let it sink in some more. Happy hacking, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
