Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] rtc: pch-rtc: add Intel Series PCH built-in read-only RTC | From | Ivan Mikhaylov <> | Date | Mon, 30 Aug 2021 14:56:48 +0300 |
| |
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 22:05 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 17/08/2021 18:04:09+0000, Milton Miller II wrote: > > > > On Aug 16, 2021, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > On 15/08/2021 01:42:15+0300, Paul Fertser wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 06:44:34PM +0300, Ivan Mikhaylov wrote: > > > > > Add RTC driver with dt binding tree document. Also this driver > > > adds one sysfs > > > > > attribute for host power control which I think is odd for RTC > > > driver. > > > > > Need I cut it off and use I2C_SLAVE_FORCE? I2C_SLAVE_FORCE is not > > > good > > > > > way too from my point of view. Is there any better approach? > > > > > > > > Reading the C620 datasheet I see this interface also allows other > > > > commands (wake up, watchdog feeding, reboot etc.) and reading > > > statuses > > > > (e.g Intruder Detect, POWER_OK_BAD). > > > > > > > > I think if there's any plan to use anything other but RTC via this > > > > interface then the driver should be registered as an MFD. > > > > > > > > > > This is not the current thinking, if everything is integrated, then > > > there is no issue registering a watchdog from the RTC driver. I'll > > > let > > > you check with Lee... > > > > I think the current statement is "if they are truly disjoint > > hardware controls" then an MFD might suffice, but if they require > > software cordination the new auxillary bus seems to be desired. > > > > Honestly, the auxiliary bus doesn't provide anything that you can't do > by registering a device in multiple subsystem from a single driver. > (Lee Jones, Mark Brown and I did complain at the time that this was yet > another back channel for misuses). > > > > > However, I'm not sure what is the correct interface for > > > poweroff/reboot > > > control. > > > > While there is a gpio interface to a simple regulator switch, > > the project to date has been asserting direct or indirect > > gpios etc to control the host. If these are events to > > trigger a change in state and not a direct state change > > that some controller trys to follow, maybe a message delivery > > model? (this is not to reboot or cycle the bmc). > > > > milton >
Alexandre, gentle reminder about this one series. I can get rid off from sysfs attribute and put it like RO rtc without any additional things for now as starter.
Thanks.
| |