[PATCH] dt-bindings: rtc: convert MT2717 RTC to the json-schema

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 23/01/24 09:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 22/01/2024 18:40, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> On 22.01.2024 14:19, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2024 13:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal at milecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> This helps validating DTS files. Introduced changes:
>>>> 1. Reworded title
>>>> 2. Dropper redundant properties descriptions
>>>> 3. Added required #include and adjusted "reg" in example
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal at milecki.pl>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml     | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc-mt2712.txt    | 14 -------
>>>>    2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>    create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml
>>>>    delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc-mt2712.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/mediatek,mt2712-rtc.yaml
>>>
>>> In this schema can easily fit "mediatek,mt7622-rtc", so how about renaming it and add reference for that RTC as well?
>>
>> I see your point but by looking at existing Linux drivers:
>> drivers/rtc/rtc-mt2712.c
>> drivers/rtc/rtc-mt7622.c
>> it seems like quite different hardware blocks.
>>
>> Different registers, different programming, clk in MT7622.
>>
>> Should they really share a YAML binding just because they use similar
>> properties?
> 
> Hardware aspect matters more, including features not yet present in the
> binding, like some power on/off control. Different clock inputs is also
> an argument.
> 

I agree - those IPs are different, we should have two bindings for the two
(very) different IP versions.

Cheers,
Angelo