| Message ID | 20241015004945.3676-2-jonathan@marek.ca (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | x1e80100 RTC support | expand |
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote: > Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP. > Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not > possible. > > Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform. > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@oss.qualcomm.com> Alexandre, please pick up the driver and dt-binding patch (i.e. patch 1 & 2) through your tree, and I can pick the dts patches through the qcom tree. Regards, Bjorn > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca> > --- > drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644 > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc { > struct rtc_device *rtc; > struct regmap *regmap; > bool allow_set_time; > + bool no_alarm; > int alarm_irq; > const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs; > struct device *dev; > @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (!rtc_dd->regmap) > return -ENXIO; > > - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > - return -ENXIO; > + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, > + "qcom,no-alarm"); > + > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > + rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > + if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > + return -ENXIO; > + } > > rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, > "allow-set-time"); > @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd); > > - device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) > + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); > > rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev); > if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc)) > @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops; > rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX; > > - rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, > - pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, > - IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, > - "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); > - if (rc < 0) > - return rc; > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > + rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, > + pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, > + IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, > + "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); > + if (rc < 0) > + return rc; > + } > > rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc); > if (rc) > return rc; > > - rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); > - if (rc) > - return rc; > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > + rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); > + if (rc) > + return rc; > + } else { > + clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features); > + } > > return 0; > } > > static void pm8xxx_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > - dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev); > + struct pm8xxx_rtc *rtc_dd = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > + > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) > + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev); > } > > static struct platform_driver pm8xxx_rtc_driver = { > -- > 2.45.1 >
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote: > Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP. > Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not > possible. > > Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform. An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that as an indicator. > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca> > --- > drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644 > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc { > struct rtc_device *rtc; > struct regmap *regmap; > bool allow_set_time; > + bool no_alarm; How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)? > int alarm_irq; > const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs; > struct device *dev; > @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (!rtc_dd->regmap) > return -ENXIO; > > - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > - return -ENXIO; > + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, > + "qcom,no-alarm"); > + Stray newline. > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > + rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > + if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > + return -ENXIO; > + } > > rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, > "allow-set-time"); > @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd); > > - device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) > + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); > > rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev); > if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc)) > @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops; > rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX; > > - rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, > - pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, > - IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, > - "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); > - if (rc < 0) > - return rc; > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > + rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, > + pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, > + IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, > + "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); > + if (rc < 0) > + return rc; > + } > > rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc); > if (rc) > return rc; > > - rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); > - if (rc) > - return rc; > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > + rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); > + if (rc) > + return rc; > + } else { > + clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features); I assume that you should be clearing the feature bit before registering the RTC. > + } > > return 0; > } Johan
On 16/10/2024 08:42:46+0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote: > > Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP. > > Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not > > possible. > > > > Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform. > > An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that > as an indicator. > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca> > > --- > > drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > > index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644 > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc { > > struct rtc_device *rtc; > > struct regmap *regmap; > > bool allow_set_time; > > + bool no_alarm; > > How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid > the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)? > > > int alarm_irq; > > const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs; > > struct device *dev; > > @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > if (!rtc_dd->regmap) > > return -ENXIO; > > > > - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > > - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > > - return -ENXIO; > > + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, > > + "qcom,no-alarm"); > > + > > Stray newline. > > > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > > + rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > > + if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > > + return -ENXIO; > > + } > > > > rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, > > "allow-set-time"); > > @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd); > > > > - device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); > > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) > > + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); > > > > rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev); > > if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc)) > > @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops; > > rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX; > > > > - rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, > > - pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, > > - IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, > > - "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); > > - if (rc < 0) > > - return rc; > > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > > + rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, > > + pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, > > + IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, > > + "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); > > + if (rc < 0) > > + return rc; > > + } > > > > rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc); > > if (rc) > > return rc; > > > > - rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); > > - if (rc) > > - return rc; > > + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > > + rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); > > + if (rc) > > + return rc; Also, probe must not fail after devm_rtc_allocate_device has been called.so you could fix this with this patch. > > + } else { > > + clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features); > > I assume that you should be clearing the feature bit before registering > the RTC. > > > + } > > > > return 0; > > } > > Johan
On 10/16/24 2:42 AM, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote: >> Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP. >> Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not >> possible. >> >> Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform. > > An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that > as an indicator. > That wouldn't be right, the registers/interrupt still exist and should be described in DT. (if you have firmware that allows access to the alarm, now you only have to delete the qcom,no-alarm property in your dts to use it) >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca> >> --- >> drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- >> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c >> index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644 >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c >> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc { >> struct rtc_device *rtc; >> struct regmap *regmap; >> bool allow_set_time; >> + bool no_alarm; > > How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid > the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)? > My reasoning is that the DT flag has to be negative, and its better to use the same name as the DT flag, but inverting it is OK. >> int alarm_irq; >> const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs; >> struct device *dev; >> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> if (!rtc_dd->regmap) >> return -ENXIO; >> >> - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); >> - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) >> - return -ENXIO; >> + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, >> + "qcom,no-alarm"); >> + > > Stray newline. > That's not a stray newline? >> + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { >> + rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); >> + if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) >> + return -ENXIO; >> + } >> >> rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, >> "allow-set-time"); >> @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd); >> >> - device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); >> + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) >> + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); >> >> rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev); >> if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc)) >> @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops; >> rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX; >> >> - rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, >> - pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, >> - IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, >> - "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); >> - if (rc < 0) >> - return rc; >> + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { >> + rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, >> + pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, >> + IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, >> + "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); >> + if (rc < 0) >> + return rc; >> + } >> >> rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc); >> if (rc) >> return rc; >> >> - rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); >> - if (rc) >> - return rc; >> + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { >> + rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); >> + if (rc) >> + return rc; >> + } else { >> + clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features); > > I assume that you should be clearing the feature bit before registering > the RTC. > Right, it just needs to be after devm_rtc_allocate_device, not devm_rtc_register_device. >> + } >> >> return 0; >> } > > Johan >
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 08:44:26AM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote: > On 10/16/24 2:42 AM, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote: > >> Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP. > >> Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not > >> possible. > >> > >> Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform. > > > > An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that > > as an indicator. > > That wouldn't be right, the registers/interrupt still exist and should > be described in DT. Yeah, the registers are still there, and are probably readable too (IIRC), but the OS will never receive any interrupts. > (if you have firmware that allows access to the alarm, now you only have > to delete the qcom,no-alarm property in your dts to use it) Fair enough. And the new flag mirrors the old. > >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca> > >> --- > >> drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > >> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > >> index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c > >> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc { > >> struct rtc_device *rtc; > >> struct regmap *regmap; > >> bool allow_set_time; > >> + bool no_alarm; > > > > How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid > > the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)? > > > > My reasoning is that the DT flag has to be negative, and its better to > use the same name as the DT flag, but inverting it is OK. I agree about the dt parameter, but I still I prefer a non-negated variable (similar to allow_set_time). > >> int alarm_irq; > >> const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs; > >> struct device *dev; > >> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> if (!rtc_dd->regmap) > >> return -ENXIO; > >> > >> - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > >> - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > >> - return -ENXIO; > >> + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, > >> + "qcom,no-alarm"); > >> + > > > > Stray newline. > > > > That's not a stray newline? There was no empty line between the assignment and check before this change, but now there is even though there should not be. > >> + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { > >> + rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > >> + if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > >> + return -ENXIO; > >> + } Johan
On 10/16/24 9:02 AM, Johan Hovold wrote: >>>> int alarm_irq; >>>> const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs; >>>> struct device *dev; >>>> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> if (!rtc_dd->regmap) >>>> return -ENXIO; >>>> >>>> - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); >>>> - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) >>>> - return -ENXIO; >>>> + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, >>>> + "qcom,no-alarm"); >>>> + >>> >>> Stray newline. >>> >> >> That's not a stray newline? > > There was no empty line between the assignment and check before this > change, but now there is even though there should not be. > There was no empty line between the "alarm_irq" assignment and check, and there still isn't. That empty line separating the new of_property_read_bool() line. I could move both of_property_read_bool() lines together to make it look better. >>>> + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { >>>> + rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); >>>> + if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) >>>> + return -ENXIO; >>>> + } > > Johan >
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:12:08AM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote: > On 10/16/24 9:02 AM, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>>> int alarm_irq; > >>>> const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs; > >>>> struct device *dev; > >>>> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>>> if (!rtc_dd->regmap) > >>>> return -ENXIO; > >>>> > >>>> - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > >>>> - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) > >>>> - return -ENXIO; > >>>> + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, > >>>> + "qcom,no-alarm"); > >>>> + > >>> > >>> Stray newline. > >> > >> That's not a stray newline? > > > > There was no empty line between the assignment and check before this > > change, but now there is even though there should not be. > > There was no empty line between the "alarm_irq" assignment and check, > and there still isn't. That empty line separating the new > of_property_read_bool() line. Ah, sorry, my bad. > I could move both of_property_read_bool() lines together to make it look > better. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Johan
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc { struct rtc_device *rtc; struct regmap *regmap; bool allow_set_time; + bool no_alarm; int alarm_irq; const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs; struct device *dev; @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (!rtc_dd->regmap) return -ENXIO; - rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); - if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) - return -ENXIO; + rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, + "qcom,no-alarm"); + + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { + rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); + if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0) + return -ENXIO; + } rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, "allow-set-time"); @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd); - device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1); rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev); if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc)) @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops; rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX; - rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, - pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, - IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, - "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); - if (rc < 0) - return rc; + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { + rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq, + pm8xxx_alarm_trigger, + IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, + "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd); + if (rc < 0) + return rc; + } rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc); if (rc) return rc; - rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); - if (rc) - return rc; + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) { + rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq); + if (rc) + return rc; + } else { + clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features); + } return 0; } static void pm8xxx_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) { - dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev); + struct pm8xxx_rtc *rtc_dd = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); + + if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev); } static struct platform_driver pm8xxx_rtc_driver = {
Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP. Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not possible. Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca> --- drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)