On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 07:52:22AM +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

"David" == David Gibson [off-list ref] writes:

Hi

 >> compatible = "fsl-i2c";
 >> reg = <3100 100>;
 >> interrupts = <f 8>;
 >> interrupt-parent = < &ipic >;
 >> dfsrr;
 >> +
 >> +			rtc@68 {
 >> +				device_type = "rtc";
 >> +				compatible = "dallas,ds1339";
 >> +				reg = <68>;
 >> +			};

 David> I think we want to think a bit more carefully about how to do bindings
 David> for RTC devices.  No "rtc" device_type is defined, but again we might
 David> want to.

Could be. I've simply done it like kuroboxHD.dts already does and
fsl_soc.c expects.

 David> I did find one real OF binding for a different Dallas RTC (and NVRAM),
 David> see:

 David> http://playground.sun.com/1275/proposals/Closed/Remanded/Accepted/346-it.txt

 David> It's a little different from the example above.

 David> The fact that NVRAM+RTC chips are so common is a bit of an issue from
 David> the point of view of defining a device class binding - a device can't
 David> have type "rtc" and "nvram".

True. I think we should primarily focus on the RTC part rather than
NVRAM as that's the "main" functionality and leave a NVRAM class for
I2C EEPROMs.

The Linux driver for the chip (rtc-1307.c) doesn't expose the NVRAM
bytes either.

Incidentally how are you planning on instantiating the driver?  AFAIK
all the rtc-* drivers are platform drivers rather than of_platform
drivers.  I had been thinking of an rtc helper function that would go
through the tree instantiating platform devices for any RTCs based on
a compatible -> platform device name table.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson