Re: [PATCH 11/18] ARM: at91/rtc-at91sam9: each SoC can select the RTT device to use

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 11:32 Mon 20 Feb     , Ryan Mallon wrote:
> On 18/02/12 04:50, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> 
> > From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> > 
> > For the RTT as RTC driver rtc-at91sam9, the platform_device structure
> > is filled during SoC initialization. This will allow to convert this
> > RTC driver as a standard platform driver.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c |   11 +++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9261_devices.c |   10 +++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c |   25 ++++++++++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45_devices.c |   10 +++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl_devices.c  |   10 +++++
> >  drivers/rtc/rtc-at91sam9.c               |   61 ++++-------------------------
> >  6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c
> > index b93a337..2071017 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c
> > @@ -728,8 +728,19 @@ static struct platform_device at91sam9260_rtt_device = {
> >  	.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(rtt_resources),
> >  };
> >  
> > +
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_AT91SAM9)
> > +static void __init at91_add_device_rtt_rtc(void)
> > +{
> > +	at91sam9260_rtt_device.name = "rtc-at91sam9";
> > +}
> 
> 
> Nitpickish: This function doesn't _add_ anything. It would probably be
> better called at91_init_device_rtt_rtc. Same goes for the other "add"
> functions in this patch.
yes but an other patch update it to add gpbr resource

> 
> > +#else
> > +static void __init at91_add_device_rtt_rtc(void) {}
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  static void __init at91_add_device_rtt(void)
> >  {
> > +	at91_add_device_rtt_rtc();
> >  	platform_device_register(&at91sam9260_rtt_device);
> >  }
> 
> 
> Does this work by setting the rtt device name iff
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_AT91SAM9 is set? If so, it seems a bit ugly. Why bother
> doing the platform_device_register at all if you know it isn't going to
> do anything? Shouldn't the at91sam9260_rrt_device struct declaration and
> the platform_device_register all be conditional on CONFIG_RTC_DRV_AT91SAM9?
no people use rtt for other purpose
RTT is a timer and the rtc use it

anyway this will be dropped via DT
and the resource will be optional

Best Regards,
J.