Re: [PATCH 6/6] documentation: bindings: document PMIC8921/8058 RTC

Hey Rob-

Thanks for the reply.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:35:25AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Josh Cartwright [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:58:55PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 03/05/14 11:29, Josh Cartwright wrote:

quoted

+- interrupts: interrupt list for the RTC, must contain a single interrupt
+              specifier for the alarm interrupt
+- interrupt-names: corresponding interrupt names for the interrupts listed in
+                   the 'interrupts' property, must contain:
+     "alarm" - summary interrupt for PMIC peripherals

optional interrupt-names?

It isn't clear to me why these should be made optional, I hope Rob
provides some clarification in the sdhci-msm thread.

Because reg and interrupt names are relatively new and reluctantly
added by DT maintainers. Personally, I think it was a mistake and it
is simply Linux specific information leaking into the DT, but it did
make transition to DT easier.

I don't necessarily buy the Linux-specific argument in general.  If a
devices' datasheet clearly gives names to register regions and
interrupts, what about reflecting these names in the bindings is
Linux-specific?

Now, there are probably abuses of this, where the reg-names and
interrupt-names are abused to ensure driver compatibility with devices
described in board files, and only in that case will I agree is
Linux-specific and should be strongly discouraged.

The requirement is still the ordering of reg and interrupts fields
must be defined and you cannot rely on the names to define the order.

Should this requirement also exist for other <foo>-names properties?

It is quite pointless here since you only have 1 field.

Indeed in the interrupt case it is worthless, as there is only one alarm
interrupt.  However for registers I do plan to extend this binding in
the future to document a newer RTC which does split registers across
multiple named address regions.

Thanks again,
  Josh

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation