Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

RTC: MAX31331: Support and documentation for RTC MAX31331 #2593

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

RTC: MAX31331: Support and documentation for RTC MAX31331 #2593

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

SwaroopPKADI
Copy link

PR Description

  • RTC: MAX31331: Support for MAX31331 and updated the documents.

PR Type

  • Bug fix (a change that fixes an issue)
  • New feature (a change that adds new functionality)
  • Breaking change (a change that affects other repos or cause CIs to fail)

PR Checklist

  • I have conducted a self-review of my own code changes
  • I have tested the changes on the relevant hardware
  • I have updated the documentation outside this repo accordingly (if there is the case)

@SwaroopPKADI SwaroopPKADI marked this pull request as draft September 6, 2024 07:35
@SwaroopPKADI
rtc:max31331:Support for RTC MAX31331
d113b40 
MAX31331 is an ultra-low-power, I2C Real-Time Clock RTC

Signed-off-by: Swaroop Kukkillaya <[email protected]>
@SwaroopPKADI
devicetree:rtc:max31331:Update documentation for max31331
9030670 
Add details to use max31331. The main difference between max31331
and max31335 is the I2C Slave Address. Max31331 uses 0x68 where as
max31335 uses 0x69.

Signed-off-by: Swaroop Kukkillaya <[email protected]>
@SwaroopPKADI SwaroopPKADI marked this pull request as ready for review September 6, 2024 11:59
nunojsa
nunojsa reviewed Sep 20, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@nunojsa nunojsa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note that I'm expecting this to be first upstreamed before merging it in our tree...

Also, make sure you change your commit titles. Run:

  • git log --oneline Documentation/devicetree/bindings
  • git log --oneline drivers/rtc

and use the same style.

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/adi,max31335.yaml

reg:
maxItems: 1
description: I2C address of the RTC
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no need for description

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/adi,max31335.yaml

interrupts:
description: |
Alarm1 interrupt line of the RTC.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ditto

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/adi,max31335.yaml
properties:
reg:
items:
- const: 0x68
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think, typically, this comes after required: but I see that you're already making use of allOf: here. Maybe it's acceptable to move it to the end. Not sure, up to you...

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/adi,max31335.yaml
@@ -59,7 +82,7 @@ examples:

rtc@68 {
compatible = "adi,max31335";
reg = <0x68>;
reg = <0x69>;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't change this. Why going in favor of the new reg? If you really want, add another example for the new device.

drivers/rtc/rtc-max31335.c
ID_MAX31331,
ID_MAX31335,
MAX_RTC_ID_NR
};
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Make the ids part of chip_desc

drivers/rtc/rtc-max31335.c
sizeof(date));
if (ret)
return ret;

tm->tm_sec = bcd2bin(date[0] & 0x7f);
tm->tm_min = bcd2bin(date[1] & 0x7f);
/* Hour is always set to 24Hr format */
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would drop the comment

drivers/rtc/rtc-max31335.c
if (max31335->id == ID_MAX31331)
ret = regmap_read(max31335->regmap, MAX31331_RTC_CONFIG2, &reg);
else
ret = regmap_read(max31335->regmap, MAX31335_RTC_CONFIG2, &reg);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can make the config register part of your chip_info struct and get rid of the if(). It even looks like you can actually remove the enum...

drivers/rtc/rtc-max31335.c
if (!device_property_present(dev, "#clock-cells")) {
if (max31335->id == ID_MAX31331)
return 0;
else
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Redundant else... Why do we return 0 in the other case? Are the bits not part of the register? But I assume we still have an output clock to register?

This is the only case where the id seems to be needed. Not sure what those bits are but maybe you can also have a dedicated boolean in your chip_info to make the decision in here.

drivers/rtc/rtc-max31335.c
int ret;

max31335 = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*max31335), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!max31335)
return -ENOMEM;

dev_set_drvdata(&client->dev, max31335);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why? Note the call to i2c_set_clientdata(client, max31335);

drivers/rtc/rtc-max31335.c
else
return -ENODEV;

max31335->id = max31335->chip - chip;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Use i2c_get_match_data() and check for NULL (return error in that case)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@nunojsa nunojsa nunojsa left review comments

@mhennerich mhennerich Awaiting requested review from mhennerich mhennerich is a code owner

@dbogdan dbogdan Awaiting requested review from dbogdan dbogdan is a code owner

@btogorean btogorean Awaiting requested review from btogorean btogorean is a code owner

@chegbeli chegbeli Awaiting requested review from chegbeli chegbeli is a code owner

@buha buha Awaiting requested review from buha buha is a code owner

@amiclaus amiclaus Awaiting requested review from amiclaus amiclaus is a code owner

@rbolboac rbolboac Awaiting requested review from rbolboac rbolboac is a code owner

@danmois danmois Awaiting requested review from danmois danmois is a code owner

@CiprianRegus CiprianRegus Awaiting requested review from CiprianRegus CiprianRegus is a code owner

@machschmitt machschmitt Awaiting requested review from machschmitt machschmitt is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@SwaroopPKADI @nunojsa