| Message ID | 20221213005539.1133443-1-echanude@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: pm8450a: add rtc node | expand |
On 13 December 2022 03:55:38 GMT+03:00, Eric Chanudet <echanude@redhat.com> wrote: >Add the rtc block on pm8450a first pmic to enable the rtc for >sa8540p-ride. > >Signed-off-by: Eric Chanudet <echanude@redhat.com> >--- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > >diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi >index 34fc72896761..af761dbfbc66 100644 >--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi >+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi >@@ -13,6 +13,14 @@ pm8450a: pmic@0 { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <0>; > >+ rtc@6000 { >+ compatible = "qcom,pm8941-rtc"; >+ reg = <0x6000>; >+ reg-names = "rtc", "alarm"; >+ interrupts = <0x0 0x61 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>; 0x60? >+ wakeup-source; >+ }; >+ > pm8450a_gpios: gpio@c000 { > compatible = "qcom,pm8150-gpio", "qcom,spmi-gpio"; > reg = <0xc000>;
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:18:00AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi > >index 34fc72896761..af761dbfbc66 100644 > >--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi > >+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi > >@@ -13,6 +13,14 @@ pm8450a: pmic@0 { > > #address-cells = <1>; > > #size-cells = <0>; > > > >+ rtc@6000 { > >+ compatible = "qcom,pm8941-rtc"; > >+ reg = <0x6000>; > >+ reg-names = "rtc", "alarm"; > >+ interrupts = <0x0 0x61 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>; > > > 0x60? Checking downstream it uses 0x61 for the ppid. This is also the case for all other descriptions of that RTC I could find. On the other hand, that does not describe the "alarm" register bank at 0x6100. Should it be added, if anything to match reg-names? I tried a quick test of the alarm on sa8540p-ride: $ echo $(date '+%s' -d '+ 10 seconds') > /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm It logged the interrupt: 172: 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pmic_arb 101777441 Edge pm8xxx_rtc_alarm
On 13 December 2022 20:18:55 EET, Eric Chanudet <echanude@redhat.com> wrote: >On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:18:00AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi >> >index 34fc72896761..af761dbfbc66 100644 >> >--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi >> >+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi >> >@@ -13,6 +13,14 @@ pm8450a: pmic@0 { >> > #address-cells = <1>; >> > #size-cells = <0>; >> > >> >+ rtc@6000 { >> >+ compatible = "qcom,pm8941-rtc"; >> >+ reg = <0x6000>; >> >+ reg-names = "rtc", "alarm"; >> >+ interrupts = <0x0 0x61 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>; >> >> >> 0x60? > >Checking downstream it uses 0x61 for the ppid. This is also the case >for all other descriptions of that RTC I could find. On the other hand, >that does not describe the "alarm" register bank at 0x6100. >Should it be added, if anything to match reg-names? Definitely yes. I think otherwise it breaks the idea of reg-names. > >I tried a quick test of the alarm on sa8540p-ride: >$ echo $(date '+%s' -d '+ 10 seconds') > /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm >It logged the interrupt: >172: 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pmic_arb 101777441 Edge pm8xxx_rtc_alarm >
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi index 34fc72896761..af761dbfbc66 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi @@ -13,6 +13,14 @@ pm8450a: pmic@0 { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; + rtc@6000 { + compatible = "qcom,pm8941-rtc"; + reg = <0x6000>; + reg-names = "rtc", "alarm"; + interrupts = <0x0 0x61 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>; + wakeup-source; + }; + pm8450a_gpios: gpio@c000 { compatible = "qcom,pm8150-gpio", "qcom,spmi-gpio"; reg = <0xc000>;
Add the rtc block on pm8450a first pmic to enable the rtc for sa8540p-ride. Signed-off-by: Eric Chanudet <echanude@redhat.com> --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a.dtsi | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)