On 7/2/2013 11:41 AM, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:39:28, Nori, Sekhar wrote:

quoted

On 7/2/2013 11:34 AM, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:32:34, Nori, Sekhar wrote:

quoted

On 6/28/2013 3:05 PM, Hebbar Gururaja wrote:

quoted

On some platforms (like AM33xx), a special register (RTC_IRQWAKEEN)
is available to enable Alarm Wakeup feature. This register needs to be
properly handled for the rtcwake to work properly.

Platforms using such IP should set "ti,am3352-rtc" in rtc device dt
compatibility node.

Signed-off-by: Hebbar Gururaja <redacted>
Cc: Grant Likely <redacted>
Cc: Rob Herring <redacted>
Cc: Rob Landley <redacted>
Cc: Sekhar Nori <redacted>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <redacted>
Cc: Alessandro Zummo <redacted>
Cc: rtc-linux at googlegroups.com
Cc: devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: linux-doc at vger.kernel.org
---

[...]

quoted

-#define	OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX	1
+#define	OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX		1
+#define	OMAP_RTC_DATA_AM335X_IDX	2
 
 static struct platform_device_id omap_rtc_devtype[] = {
 	{

@@ -309,6 +321,9 @@ static struct platform_device_id omap_rtc_devtype[] = {
 	}, {
 		.name	= "da830-rtc",
 		.driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER,
+	}, {
+		.name	= "am335x-rtc",

may be use am3352-rtc here just to keep the platform device name and of
compatible in sync.

Correct. I will update the same in v2.

quoted

quoted

+		.driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER | OMAP_RTC_HAS_IRQWAKEEN,
 	},
 	{},

It is better to use the index defined above in the static initialization
so they remain in sync.

Sorry. I didn?t get this.

See example below I provided. If its still not clear, let me know what
is not clear.

quoted

quoted

	...
	[OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX] = {
		.name	= "da830-rtc",
		.driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER,
	},

Thanks for the clarification. In this case will it ok if I update the previous
member also.

You dont really reference [0] in omap_rtc_of_match[] so even if you
leave it as-is, that's fine with me. I am mostly concerned with the
index definitions and initialization order being out of sync and that's
really not an issue with [0].

Thanks,
Sekhar