[PATCH v3 1/5] ARM: dts: at91: Add the required `atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg` property

[Sergiu.Moga at microchip.com]

On 04.03.2022 16:53, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 04/03/2022 16:27:42+0200, Sergiu Moga wrote:
>> Add the required `atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg` property to the `rtt` nodes
>> of the board files that were missing it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Moga <sergiu.moga at microchip.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts | 4 ++++
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts | 8 ++++++++
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9rlek.dts  | 4 ++++
>>   3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts
>> index beed819609e8..3c1f40b4a13e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts
>> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ dbgu: serial at fffff200 {
>>                                status = "okay";
>>                        };
>>
>> +                     rtc at fffffd20 {
>> +                             atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x0>;
>> +                     };
>> +
>>                        watchdog at fffffd40 {
>>                                status = "okay";
>>                        };
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts
>> index 71f60576761a..1208bb580d14 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts
>> @@ -102,6 +102,14 @@ mtd_dataflash at 0 {
>>                                };
>>                        };
>>
>> +                     rtc at fffffd20 {
>> +                             atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x0>;
>> +                     };
>> +
>> +                     rtc at fffffd50 {
>> +                             atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x4>;
>> +                     };
> Do we really need two RTCs with the exact same features on that board?
> Is there a check failure hen the property is not there and the node is
> disabled?
>
I can understand your point here. No, it is indeed not really needed 
since, from what I can see, they are both disabled in the SoC file. The 
reason why I added both was that I thought it would have been more 
consistent. Do you think I should remove both in this file and keep the 
changes in the other 2 files only?

> --
> Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com

Thank you for the feedback.

Sergiu