On 23/05/2022 14:34:22+0200, Valentin CARON wrote: > Hi Alexandre, > > On 5/4/22 22:27, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On 04/05/2022 15:06:13+0200, Valentin Caron wrote: > > > STM32 RTC can pulse some SOC pins when an alarm of RTC expires. > > > > > > This patch adds property to activate alarm A output. The pulse can > > > output on three pins RTC_OUT1, RTC_OUT2, RTC_OUT2_RMP > > > (PC13, PB2, PI8 on stm32mp15) (PC13, PB2, PI1 on stm32mp13). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Valentin Caron <valentin.caron@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml > > > index 56d46ea35c5d..71e02604e8de 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml > > > @@ -59,6 +59,13 @@ properties: > > > Refer to <include/dt-bindings/rtc/rtc-stm32.h> for the supported values. > > > Pinctrl state named "default" may be defined to reserve pin for RTC output. > > > + st,alarm: > > > + $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32" > > > + description: | > > > + To select and enable RTC Alarm A output. > > > + Refer to <include/dt-bindings/rtc/rtc-stm32.h> for the supported values. > > > + Pinctrl state named "default" may be defined to reserve pin for RTC output. > > > + > > > allOf: > > > - if: > > > properties: > > > @@ -75,6 +82,9 @@ allOf: > > > st,lsco: > > > maxItems: 0 > > > + st,alarm: > > > + maxItems: 0 > > > + > > > clock-names: false > > > required: > > > @@ -95,6 +105,9 @@ allOf: > > > st,lsco: > > > maxItems: 0 > > > + st,alarm: > > > + maxItems: 0 > > > + > > > required: > > > - clock-names > > > - st,syscfg > > > @@ -117,6 +130,9 @@ allOf: > > > st,lsco: > > > maxItems: 1 > > > + st,alarm: > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > + > > > required: > > > - clock-names > > > @@ -153,8 +169,9 @@ examples: > > > clocks = <&rcc RTCAPB>, <&rcc RTC>; > > > clock-names = "pclk", "rtc_ck"; > > > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > > > + st,alarm = <RTC_OUT1>; > > > st,lsco = <RTC_OUT2_RMP>; > > Shouldn't that be exactly the opposite? You have two pins that can > > output different functions. The property should be the pin and the value > > the function. I'd go even further and I would say this is actually > > pinmuxing. > > > You're right, if the property is the pin and the value the function, this > looks like a pinctrl node. > We choose to develop theses functionalities in the reverse order, to avoid > the complexity of adding > the pinctrl framework to our driver. Moreover, LSCO and AlarmA may haven't a > peripheral client and > this would probably require to also implement pinctrl hogging. > > Is the implementation that we have proposed is acceptable regarding theses > elements ? > I still think that the pin has to be the property and the function the value. Or we could find a generic name and provide an array of pin, function pair Or, go for pinmuxing My point here is that this is a common feature an RTCs and I don't want every vendor to come up with their own properties. Regards, -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
