Hi all,

Kindly ignore this message. It was sent in wrong format.

Sorry for the noise

Regards, 
Gururaja

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:26:57, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:

Below is the code snippet I was referring to
 
 
From drivers/rtc/rtc-omap.c
 
static struct platform_device_id omap_rtc_devtype[] = {
      {
            .name = DRIVER_NAME,
      },
      [OMAP_RTC_DATA_AM3352_IDX] = {
            .name = "am3352-rtc",
            .driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER | OMAP_RTC_HAS_IRQWAKEEN,
      },
      [OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX] = {
            .name = "da830-rtc",
            .driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER,
     },
      {},
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, omap_rtc_devtype);
 
static const struct of_device_id omap_rtc_of_match[] = {
      {     .compatible = "ti,da830-rtc",
            .data       = &omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX],
      },
      {     .compatible = "ti,am3352-rtc",
            .data       = &omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_AM3352_IDX],
      },
      {},
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, omap_rtc_of_match);
 
 
From arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx.dtsi
 
            rtc at 44e3e000 {
                  compatible = "ti,da830-rtc", "ti,am3352-rtc";
                  reg = <0x44e3e000 0x1000>;
                  interrupts = <75
                              76>;
                  ti,hwmods = "rtc";
            };
 
 
As seen from above snippet, 2 compatible items are specified for
compatible dt property (ti,da830-rtc" & "ti,am3352-rtc?)
These are the same compatibles that are mentioned in the of_device_id
structure inside rtc-omap driver.
 
What I observed is, if we mention both compatible in the .dtsi file that
are under one single of_device_id structure, the first match from the
of_device_id structure is considered (ti,da830-rtc in above case)
 
To confirm, I switched the 2 compatible inside of_device_id structure as
below
 
 
static const struct of_device_id omap_rtc_of_match[] = {
      {     .compatible = "ti,am3352-rtc",
            .data       = &omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_AM3352_IDX],
      },
      {     .compatible = "ti,da830-rtc",
            .data       = &omap_rtc_devtype[OMAP_RTC_DATA_DA830_IDX],
      },
      {},
};
 
In this case, the first match from compatible field was chosen
(ti,am3352-rtc now).
 
 
Hope this is clear.
 
Kindly let me know when you are free to discuss.
 
 
Regards
Gururaja
 

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Nori, Sekhar
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:47 AM
To: Hebbar, Gururaja
Cc: khilman at linaro.org; tony at atomide.com; Cousson, Benoit; linux-
omap at vger.kernel.org; devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org; linux-
kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
davinci-linux-open-source at linux.davincidsp.com; Bedia, Vaibhav;
Rajashekhara, Sudhakar; Grant Likely; Rob Herring; Rob Landley;
Alessandro Zummo; rtc-linux at googlegroups.com; linux-
doc at vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rtc: omap: add rtc wakeup support to
alarm events



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

quoted

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)

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

is available to enable Alarm Wakeup feature. This register

needs to be

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

properly handled for the rtcwake to work properly.

Platforms using such IP should set "ti,am3352-rtc" in rtc

device dt

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

compatibility node.

Signed-off-by: Hebbar Gururaja <gururaja.hebbar@ti.com

<mailto:gururaja.hebbar@ti.com> >

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org

<mailto:grant.likely@linaro.org> >

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com

<mailto:rob.herring@calxeda.com> >

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Cc: Rob Landley <rob at landley.net <mailto:rob@landley.net> >
Cc: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar at ti.com <mailto:nsekhar@ti.com> >
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman at linaro.org <mailto:khilman@linaro.org>

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it

<mailto:a.zummo@towertech.it> >

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Cc: rtc-linux at googlegroups.com

<mailto:rtc-linux@googlegroups.com> 

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Cc: devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org

<mailto:devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org> 

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Cc: linux-doc at vger.kernel.org <mailto:linux-doc@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[] = {

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    }, {
          .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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

compatible in sync.

Correct. I will update the same in v2.

quoted

quoted

+         .driver_data = OMAP_RTC_HAS_KICKER |

OMAP_RTC_HAS_IRQWAKEEN,

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    },
    {},

It is better to use the index defined above in the static

initialization

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

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