[PATCHv1] rtc: bcm-iproc: Add support for Broadcom iproc rtc

[Ray Jui]

On 12/16/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2014 12:05:08 Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
>> On 14-12-16 11:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 16 December 2014 11:22:30 arun.ramamurthy at broadcom.com wrote:
>>>> +       rtc: iproc_rtc at 0x03026000 {
>>>> +               compatible = "brcm,iproc-rtc";
>>>> +               reg =   spru_bbl:               <0x03026000 0xC>,
>>>> +                       crmu_pwr_good_status:   <0x0301C02C 0x14>,
>>>> +                       crmu_bbl_auth:          <0x03024C74 0x8>;
>>>> +               interrupts = spru_rtc_periodic: <GIC_SPI 142 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>>> +                            spru_alarm:        <GIC_SPI 133 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>>
>>> The reg properties look really random, could it be that the registers
>>> are really part of some other device that contains multiple functions?
>>>
>> This RTC block is on a battery backed logic island and is accessed
>> indirectly using the spru_bbl registers. The CRMU registers are required
>> to read the power status and write to some authentication registers.
>> Without writing to these authentication
>> registers, we cannot access any of the spru_bbl registers. In conclusion
>> I don't think the CRMU register accesses can be considered as another
>> device access. Do you agree Arnd?
>
> It sounds like CRMU is some other unit aside from the RTC. Could this
> be something like a generic system controller? I think it should
> either have its own driver or use the syscon logic if that is what
> this is.
>
Giving that CRMU has scattered, miscellaneous control logic for multiple 
different peripherals, it probably makes more sense to use the syscon 
logic here.

>>> Also, what do you use the labels for?
>>>
>> The labels are purely to improve readability of the device tree entry
>
> Please remove them then, they don't help at all.
>
> 	Arnd
>