On 13-04-02 09:06 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]> --- Hi all,The funny thing is that I was writing exactly the same code as Johan's when he posted his series. So, here is my single patch, with the comment about the readback stolen from Johan's, but without the way to determine with IP is buggy and which one is not... After having dug the possibility to read the IP revision, I discovered that it is not possible to use this information ("version" register offset changing according to... IP version number: well done!). In conclusion, I guess that the only way to determine if we need the workaround is to use the DT. One remark though: if we use the compatibility string for this purpose, I fear that we would twist the meaning of this information: SoC using an "atmel,at91sam9x5-rtc" compatible RTC will not necessarily be touched by the "non responding IMR" bug: at91sam9n12 or upcoming sama5d3 are not affected for instance, and we need to cling to "atmel,at91rm9200-rtc" for them... I think that we can use this method for the moment and move to another compatibility string later if it is needed.
Rather than have so many people working on rtc-at91rm9200.c, how about someone bring its "RTT" sibling into the DT world. I'm talking about drivers/rtc/rtc-at91sam9.c ... Doug Gilbert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
