From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
i.MX95 EVK has two RTCs exported by SCMI BBM protocol. Current driver
only enables the 1st RTC inside BBNSM module, leaving the board RTC
not used by Linux.
To use the 2nd RTC, use 'bbm_info' to get the number of RTCs, register
them all, and set 'bbnsm' as private info for rtc device to know which
RTC it is when using rtc_class_ops to access rtc device.
Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
---
drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
index daa472be7c80697aa3cd3432eccef0c877e4c378..a29b30555d0c0581ecaa8b79760209dc780d2f0e 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
@@ -15,16 +15,18 @@ struct scmi_imx_bbm {
struct rtc_device *rtc_dev;
struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph;
struct notifier_block nb;
+ u32 bbm_rtc_id;
};
static int scmi_imx_bbm_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
{
- struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
+ struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = rtc->priv;
struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph = bbnsm->ph;
u64 val;
int ret;
- ret = bbnsm->ops->rtc_time_get(ph, 0, &val);
+ ret = bbnsm->ops->rtc_time_get(ph, bbnsm->bbm_rtc_id, &val);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -35,37 +37,40 @@ static int scmi_imx_bbm_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
static int scmi_imx_bbm_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
{
- struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
+ struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = rtc->priv;
struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph = bbnsm->ph;
u64 val;
val = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
- return bbnsm->ops->rtc_time_set(ph, 0, val);
+ return bbnsm->ops->rtc_time_set(ph, bbnsm->bbm_rtc_id, val);
}
static int scmi_imx_bbm_alarm_irq_enable(struct device *dev, unsigned int enable)
{
- struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
+ struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = rtc->priv;
struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph = bbnsm->ph;
/* scmi_imx_bbm_set_alarm enables the irq, just handle disable here */
if (!enable)
- return bbnsm->ops->rtc_alarm_set(ph, 0, false, 0);
+ return bbnsm->ops->rtc_alarm_set(ph, bbnsm->bbm_rtc_id, false, 0);
return 0;
}
static int scmi_imx_bbm_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
{
- struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ struct rtc_device *rtc = to_rtc_device(dev);
+ struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = rtc->priv;
struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph = bbnsm->ph;
struct rtc_time *alrm_tm = &alrm->time;
u64 val;
val = rtc_tm_to_time64(alrm_tm);
- return bbnsm->ops->rtc_alarm_set(ph, 0, true, val);
+ return bbnsm->ops->rtc_alarm_set(ph, bbnsm->bbm_rtc_id, true, val);
}
static const struct rtc_class_ops smci_imx_bbm_rtc_ops = {
@@ -83,19 +88,18 @@ static int scmi_imx_bbm_rtc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long ev
if (r->is_rtc)
rtc_update_irq(bbnsm->rtc_dev, 1, RTC_AF | RTC_IRQF);
else
- pr_err("Unexpected bbm event: %s\n", __func__);
+ pr_err("Unexpected bbm event: %s, bbm_rtc_id: %u\n", __func__, bbnsm->bbm_rtc_id);
return 0;
}
-static int scmi_imx_bbm_rtc_init(struct scmi_device *sdev)
+static int scmi_imx_bbm_rtc_init(struct scmi_device *sdev, struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm)
{
const struct scmi_handle *handle = sdev->handle;
struct device *dev = &sdev->dev;
- struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
int ret;
- bbnsm->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_allocate_device(dev);
+ bbnsm->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_allocate_device_priv(dev, bbnsm);
if (IS_ERR(bbnsm->rtc_dev))
return PTR_ERR(bbnsm->rtc_dev);
@@ -105,7 +109,7 @@ static int scmi_imx_bbm_rtc_init(struct scmi_device *sdev)
bbnsm->nb.notifier_call = &scmi_imx_bbm_rtc_notifier;
ret = handle->notify_ops->devm_event_notifier_register(sdev, SCMI_PROTOCOL_IMX_BBM,
SCMI_EVENT_IMX_BBM_RTC,
- NULL, &bbnsm->nb);
+ &bbnsm->bbm_rtc_id, &bbnsm->nb);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -118,29 +122,42 @@ static int scmi_imx_bbm_rtc_probe(struct scmi_device *sdev)
struct device *dev = &sdev->dev;
struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph;
struct scmi_imx_bbm *bbnsm;
- int ret;
+ const struct scmi_imx_bbm_proto_ops *ops;
+ int ret, i;
+ u32 nr_rtc;
if (!handle)
return -ENODEV;
- bbnsm = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*bbnsm), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!bbnsm)
- return -ENOMEM;
+ ops = handle->devm_protocol_get(sdev, SCMI_PROTOCOL_IMX_BBM, &ph);
+ if (IS_ERR(ops))
+ return PTR_ERR(ops);
- bbnsm->ops = handle->devm_protocol_get(sdev, SCMI_PROTOCOL_IMX_BBM, &ph);
- if (IS_ERR(bbnsm->ops))
- return PTR_ERR(bbnsm->ops);
-
- bbnsm->ph = ph;
+ ret = ops->bbm_info(ph, &nr_rtc, NULL);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
device_init_wakeup(dev, true);
- dev_set_drvdata(dev, bbnsm);
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_rtc; i++) {
+ bbnsm = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*bbnsm), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!bbnsm) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto fail;
+ }
- ret = scmi_imx_bbm_rtc_init(sdev);
- if (ret)
- device_init_wakeup(dev, false);
+ bbnsm->ops = ops;
+ bbnsm->ph = ph;
+ bbnsm->bbm_rtc_id = i;
+ ret = scmi_imx_bbm_rtc_init(sdev, bbnsm);
+ if (ret)
+ goto fail;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+fail:
+ device_init_wakeup(dev, false);
return ret;
}
--
2.37.1On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:25:36AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>
> i.MX95 EVK has two RTCs exported by SCMI BBM protocol. Current driver
> only enables the 1st RTC inside BBNSM module, leaving the board RTC
> not used by Linux.
>
> To use the 2nd RTC, use 'bbm_info' to get the number of RTCs, register
> them all, and set 'bbnsm' as private info for rtc device to know which
> RTC it is when using rtc_class_ops to access rtc device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> ---
> drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
> index daa472be7c80697aa3cd3432eccef0c877e4c378..a29b30555d0c0581ecaa8b79760209dc780d2f0e 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
> @@ -15,16 +15,18 @@ struct scmi_imx_bbm {
> struct rtc_device *rtc_dev;
> struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph;
> struct notifier_block nb;
> + u32 bbm_rtc_id;
Is it not same as rtc_dev->id ? Why do you need a copy in this wrapper/
container structure ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 05:01:12PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:25:36AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>
>> i.MX95 EVK has two RTCs exported by SCMI BBM protocol. Current driver
>> only enables the 1st RTC inside BBNSM module, leaving the board RTC
>> not used by Linux.
>>
>> To use the 2nd RTC, use 'bbm_info' to get the number of RTCs, register
>> them all, and set 'bbnsm' as private info for rtc device to know which
>> RTC it is when using rtc_class_ops to access rtc device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
>> index daa472be7c80697aa3cd3432eccef0c877e4c378..a29b30555d0c0581ecaa8b79760209dc780d2f0e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
>> @@ -15,16 +15,18 @@ struct scmi_imx_bbm {
>> struct rtc_device *rtc_dev;
>> struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph;
>> struct notifier_block nb;
>> + u32 bbm_rtc_id;
>
>Is it not same as rtc_dev->id ? Why do you need a copy in this wrapper/
>container structure ?
In theroy yes. The current system I use that all RTCs are managed by BBM
protocol. So only two RTCs are registered.
In case there is other RTCs that not managed BBM, the rtc_dev->id
will not be equal to bbm_rtc_id.
For example RTC1 is directly managed by Linux, RTC0 is managed by BBM.
The RTC1 is probed first, so its rtc_dev->id is 0. But from BBM protocol,
the RTC0 use id 0 for BBM SCMI server to handle the RTC0.
I maybe overthinking here. But to avoid potential issues, I would like to
keep bbm_rtc_id.
Regards,
Peng
>
>--
>Regards,
>Sudeep
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 02:41:17PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 05:01:12PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:25:36AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> >> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >>
> >> i.MX95 EVK has two RTCs exported by SCMI BBM protocol. Current driver
> >> only enables the 1st RTC inside BBNSM module, leaving the board RTC
> >> not used by Linux.
> >>
> >> To use the 2nd RTC, use 'bbm_info' to get the number of RTCs, register
> >> them all, and set 'bbnsm' as private info for rtc device to know which
> >> RTC it is when using rtc_class_ops to access rtc device.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
> >> index daa472be7c80697aa3cd3432eccef0c877e4c378..a29b30555d0c0581ecaa8b79760209dc780d2f0e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-imx-sm-bbm.c
> >> @@ -15,16 +15,18 @@ struct scmi_imx_bbm {
> >> struct rtc_device *rtc_dev;
> >> struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph;
> >> struct notifier_block nb;
> >> + u32 bbm_rtc_id;
> >
> >Is it not same as rtc_dev->id ? Why do you need a copy in this wrapper/
> >container structure ?
>
> In theroy yes. The current system I use that all RTCs are managed by BBM
> protocol. So only two RTCs are registered.
>
> In case there is other RTCs that not managed BBM, the rtc_dev->id
> will not be equal to bbm_rtc_id.
>
> For example RTC1 is directly managed by Linux, RTC0 is managed by BBM.
>
> The RTC1 is probed first, so its rtc_dev->id is 0. But from BBM protocol,
> the RTC0 use id 0 for BBM SCMI server to handle the RTC0.
>
> I maybe overthinking here. But to avoid potential issues, I would like to
> keep bbm_rtc_id.
>
Fair enough, I didn't think of this mix(firmware controlled RTC + Linux
controlled ones).
--
Regards,
Sudeep
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.