[v4,2/3] ARM: dts: Update the status of RTC DT node of Exynos5250 SoC to "okay"

Message ID 1376488710-12124-3-git-send-email-vikas.sajjan@linaro.org
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Vikas C Sajjan Aug. 14, 2013, 1:58 p.m.
Updates the RTC DT node's status to "okay", since the bindings in
exynos5250.dtsi depicts the RTC h/w completely.

Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Tushar Behera Aug. 15, 2013, 4:32 a.m. | #1
On 14 August 2013 19:28, Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> wrote:
> Updates the RTC DT node's status to "okay", since the bindings in
> exynos5250.dtsi depicts the RTC h/w completely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi |    1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> index f426ce6..c82137b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@
>         rtc@101E0000 {
>                 clocks = <&clock 337>;
>                 clock-names = "rtc";
> +               status = "okay";
>         };
>

Sometime back we had a discussion on this, the decision was to enable
it in respective boards.

Also if we are going ahead with this, we would need to remove the
corresponding status statements from board files.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-June/176402.html
Tomasz Figa Aug. 15, 2013, 8:59 a.m. | #2
Hi Tushar,

On Thursday 15 of August 2013 10:02:43 Tushar Behera wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 19:28, Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> wrote:
> > Updates the RTC DT node's status to "okay", since the bindings in
> > exynos5250.dtsi depicts the RTC h/w completely.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > 
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi |    1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi index f426ce6..c82137b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> > @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@
> > 
> >         rtc@101E0000 {
> >         
> >                 clocks = <&clock 337>;
> >                 clock-names = "rtc";
> > 
> > +               status = "okay";
> > 
> >         };
> 
> Sometime back we had a discussion on this, the decision was to enable
> it in respective boards.

This is not entirely true.

According to ePAPR, chapter 2.3.4, the status property has a well defined 
meaning and it should be set to "disabled" when "the device is not 
presently operational, but it might become operational in the future (for 
example, something is not plugged in, or switched off)".

This means that unless setup of the device is missing something (e.g. 
board-specific properties, like regulators or pin config) or there is a 
valid technical reason for disabling the device by default (e.g. it needs 
certain SoC pins to be properly connected to something), then such device 
should be "okay", because it is operational.

> Also if we are going ahead with this, we would need to remove the
> corresponding status statements from board files.

Yes, this is true.

Best regards,
Tomasz
Kukjin Kim Aug. 18, 2013, 6:40 p.m. | #3
On 08/15/13 17:59, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Tushar,
>
[...]

>>> +               status = "okay";
>>>
>>>          };
>>
>> Sometime back we had a discussion on this, the decision was to enable
>> it in respective boards.
>
> This is not entirely true.
>
> According to ePAPR, chapter 2.3.4, the status property has a well defined
> meaning and it should be set to "disabled" when "the device is not
> presently operational, but it might become operational in the future (for
> example, something is not plugged in, or switched off)".
>
So in my understanding, you mean using "okay" is wrong and only 
"disabled" is used? and in board dt file? Already there are too many 
"okay"...

> This means that unless setup of the device is missing something (e.g.
> board-specific properties, like regulators or pin config) or there is a
> valid technical reason for disabling the device by default (e.g. it needs
> certain SoC pins to be properly connected to something), then such device
> should be "okay", because it is operational.
>
>> Also if we are going ahead with this, we would need to remove the
>> corresponding status statements from board files.
>
> Yes, this is true.
>
According to above, probably we should add "disabled" in board dt file?

If I'm wrong, correct me.

(+ dt ml)

Anyway, I'm not sure how to use 'okay' and 'disabled' for status...

I think, every hardware information should be defined in SoC dt file and 
maybe some of them could be set disabled or okay in each board dt file...

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Kukjin
Vikas C Sajjan Aug. 19, 2013, 8:18 a.m. | #4
Hi Kukjin,

On 19 August 2013 00:10, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> On 08/15/13 17:59, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tushar,
>>
> [...]
>
>
>>>> +               status = "okay";
>>>>
>>>>          };
>>>
>>>
>>> Sometime back we had a discussion on this, the decision was to enable
>>> it in respective boards.
>>
>>
>> This is not entirely true.
>>
>> According to ePAPR, chapter 2.3.4, the status property has a well defined
>> meaning and it should be set to "disabled" when "the device is not
>> presently operational, but it might become operational in the future (for
>> example, something is not plugged in, or switched off)".
>>
> So in my understanding, you mean using "okay" is wrong and only "disabled"
> is used? and in board dt file? Already there are too many "okay"...
>
>
>> This means that unless setup of the device is missing something (e.g.
>> board-specific properties, like regulators or pin config) or there is a
>> valid technical reason for disabling the device by default (e.g. it needs
>> certain SoC pins to be properly connected to something), then such device
>> should be "okay", because it is operational.
>>
>>> Also if we are going ahead with this, we would need to remove the
>>> corresponding status statements from board files.
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is true.
>>
> According to above, probably we should add "disabled" in board dt file?
>

what Tushar meant was, since we made the status as "okay" in
exynos5250.dtsi itself, its better to remove the "okay" from the board
DTS files of exynos5250 ( exynos5250-snow.dts and
exynos5250-arndale.dts). Am I right Tushar?


> If I'm wrong, correct me.
>
> (+ dt ml)
>
> Anyway, I'm not sure how to use 'okay' and 'disabled' for status...
>
> I think, every hardware information should be defined in SoC dt file and
> maybe some of them could be set disabled or okay in each board dt file...
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Kukjin
Tushar Behera Aug. 19, 2013, 8:33 a.m. | #5
On 19 August 2013 13:48, Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Kukjin,
>
> On 19 August 2013 00:10, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 08/15/13 17:59, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tushar,
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>> +               status = "okay";
>>>>>
>>>>>          };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometime back we had a discussion on this, the decision was to enable
>>>> it in respective boards.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not entirely true.
>>>
>>> According to ePAPR, chapter 2.3.4, the status property has a well defined
>>> meaning and it should be set to "disabled" when "the device is not
>>> presently operational, but it might become operational in the future (for
>>> example, something is not plugged in, or switched off)".
>>>

Ok.

>> So in my understanding, you mean using "okay" is wrong and only "disabled"
>> is used? and in board dt file? Already there are too many "okay"...
>>
>>
>>> This means that unless setup of the device is missing something (e.g.
>>> board-specific properties, like regulators or pin config) or there is a
>>> valid technical reason for disabling the device by default (e.g. it needs
>>> certain SoC pins to be properly connected to something), then such device
>>> should be "okay", because it is operational.
>>>
>>>> Also if we are going ahead with this, we would need to remove the
>>>> corresponding status statements from board files.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, this is true.
>>>
>> According to above, probably we should add "disabled" in board dt file?
>>
>
> what Tushar meant was, since we made the status as "okay" in
> exynos5250.dtsi itself, its better to remove the "okay" from the board
> DTS files of exynos5250 ( exynos5250-snow.dts and
> exynos5250-arndale.dts). Am I right Tushar?
>

Yeah. Since we are going ahead with enabling the RTC node in
exynos5250.dtsi, I thought it would be good to remove the RTC nodes
from subsequent board files.

>
>> If I'm wrong, correct me.
>>
>> (+ dt ml)
>>
>> Anyway, I'm not sure how to use 'okay' and 'disabled' for status...
>>
>> I think, every hardware information should be defined in SoC dt file and
>> maybe some of them could be set disabled or okay in each board dt file...
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kukjin
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
>  Vikas Sajjan

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
index f426ce6..c82137b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
@@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ 
 	rtc@101E0000 {
 		clocks = <&clock 337>;
 		clock-names = "rtc";
+		status = "okay";
 	};
 
 	tmu@10060000 {