On 2/17/24 09:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 16/02/2024 10:42, Michal Simek wrote:
On 2/16/24 10:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 16/02/2024 09:51, Michal Simek wrote:
RTC has its own power domain on Xilinx Versal SOC that's why describe it as
optional property.
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/xlnx,zynqmp-rtc.yaml | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
But Versal is not described in this binding, is it? I see only one
compatible.
It is the same IP only as is on zynqmp with own power rail.
Then you should have separate compatible, because they are not
identical. It would also allow you to narrow the domains to versal and
also require it (on versal).
I can double check with HW guys but I am quite sure IP itself is exactly the
same. What it is different is that there is own power domain to it (not shared
one as is in zynqmp case).
Also Linux is non secure sw and if secure firmware won't allow to change setting
of it it can't be required. I am just saying that Linux doesn't need to be owner
of any power domain that's why it shouldn't be required property.
Thanks,
Michal
