[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 04/10] rtc: at91rm9200: use of_platform_populate as return value

On 23.12.2019 13:16, Jonathan Cameron wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:23:21 +0100
> Alexandre Belloni <> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2019 09:15:02+0000, wrote:
>>> On 18.12.2019 18:58, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>>> On 18/12/2019 16:52:21+0000, wrote:
>>>>> On 18.12.2019 18:43, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> On 18/12/2019 16:24:00+0000, wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Eugen Hristev <>
>>>>>>> This allows the RTC node to have child nodes in DT.
>>>>>>> This allows subnodes to be probed.
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c
>>>>>>> index 3b833e0..f1b5b3d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c
>>>>>>> @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ static int __init at91_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>> at91_rtc_write_ier(AT91_RTC_SECEV);
>>>>>>> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "AT91 Real Time Clock driver.\n");
>>>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>>>> + return of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
>>>>>> You can avoid the DT binding change and DT parsing by using
>>>>>> platform_add_device here. I don't think there is any point describing
>>>>>> the trigger as a child node (a watchdog functionality wouldn't be
>>>>>> described for example).

Hi Alexandre,

I started to work on this, I am trying to add and probe the
rtc_adc_trigger with platform_device_add.

However, some issues arise: this means that the rtc_adc_trigger will not
be OF-compatible, so, how can I identify the driver to probe ?
Second, by adding a new platform device from the RTC driver, would mean
that I would have to supply it's probe/remove functions, which I cannot
have here. Those are in the rtc_adc_trigger iio driver.

In fact, the question is, which is the mechanism you suggested, to be
able to probe the rtc_adc_trigger, from inside the rtc driver, without
using a child node in DT, as you requested ?
The rtc_adc_trigger needs a MEM resource, and a parent, and it must
reside inside the IIO subsystem.


>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> It's needed because the ADC needs a link to the trigger device. This is
>>>>> a hardware link inside the SoC, so I thought the best way is to describe
>>>>> this hardware is in the Device Tree.
>>>>> Otherwise the ADC node is unaware of the RTC triggering possibility.
>>>>> If we just assign the RTC trigger device to the ADC through the sysfs,
>>>>> the ADC cannot distinguish between the RTC trigger and other various
>>>>> triggers which can be attached.
>>>> I'm not sure this links is required but I will let Jonathan review. Even
>>>> if it is needed, you can still use the rtc node to describe that link.
>>> Actually, the RTC node could potentially have two different ADC
>>> triggers. There is another OUT1 field that can do a second trigger for
>>> the ADC only for the last channel. Future development might add this
>>> trigger, so, with that in mind, I think it's best to link the exact
>>> trigger and not the RTC node.
>> Nothing prevents you from using an index with the phandle (and I would
>> add a type in that case then). Having subnodes in the DT is not really a
>> good idea. The IP is the RTC, it just happens to have some outputs.
>> See what has been done for the PMC.
> If it can be done either way, let's avoid adding to the rtc dt binding.
> Jonathan
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-09 12:21    [W:0.096 / U:1.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site