On 27.01.2016 12:36, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > The MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks are very similar with only > these differences: > > 0) The RTC registers layout and addresses are different. > > 1) The MAX77686 use 1 bit of the sec/min/hour/etc registers as the > alarm enable while MAX77802 has a separate register for that. > > 2) The MAX77686 RTCYEAR register valid values range is 0..99 while > for MAX77802 is 0..199. > > 3) The MAX77686 has a separate I2C address for the RTC registers > while the MAX77802 uses the same I2C address as the PMIC regs. > > 5) The minimum delay before a RTC update (16 msecs vs 200 usecs). > > There are separate drivers for MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks > but the differences are not that big so the driver can be extended > to support both instead of duplicating a lot of code in 2 drivers. > > Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <[email protected]> > Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <[email protected]> > > --- > > Changes in v4: > - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Tested-by tag to patch #6. > - Add Andi Shyti's Reviewed-by tag to patch #6. > - Reverse alarm enable reg check logic. Suggeted by Krzysztof Kozlowski. > - Return early to avoid an else statement. Suggested by Andi Shyti. > > Changes in v3: > - Add Laxman Dewangan's Acked-by tag to patch #6. > > Changes in v2: > - Add a MAX77802 prefix to ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE. Suggested by Krzysztof > Kozlowski. > - Rename .rtcae to .alarm_enable_reg and .rtcrm to .separate_i2c_addr. > Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski. > - Don't use func and LINE in error messages. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski. > - Remove REG_RTC_AE2 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802. > - Check if REG_RTC_AE1 has a valid address before accessing it. > > drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 196 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 156 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) >
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> One comment at the end... [...] > @@ -524,6 +636,9 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > info->drv_data = (const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *) > id->driver_data; > > + if (!info->drv_data->separate_i2c_addr) > + info->max77686->rtc_regmap = info->max77686->regmap; > + At this stage I don't like the idea of messing with parent's state structure. The driver should not modify any of parents data (the best way would be to take a pointer to const). In this patch this looks like breaking the encapsulation. If the parent is responsible for regmaps, then the parent should set rtc_regmap for children (parent also knows what type device it is working on). ...but I am assuming that a new patch will be following this one - the patch moving ownership of i2c dummy and regmap to the RTC driver. In that case this code makes a lot more sense. Am I thinking correctly? Best regards, Krzysztof
