The on-chip RTC of this SoC is almost similar to the previous
versions of SoC. Hence re-use the existing driver with platform specific
change to enable RTC.
This has been tested with 'hwclock' & 'date' utilities
Signed-off-by: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com>
---
drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c
index 5dd575865adf..8db24b6360b8 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c
@@ -384,6 +384,15 @@ static void s3c6410_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc *info)
writew(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON);
}
+static void exynosautov9_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc *info)
+{
+ unsigned int con;
+
+ con = readb(info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON);
+ con &= ~S3C2410_RTCCON_RTCEN;
+ writeb(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON);
+}
+
static void s3c_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct s3c_rtc *info = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
@@ -574,6 +583,12 @@ static struct s3c_rtc_data const s3c6410_rtc_data = {
.disable = s3c6410_rtc_disable,
};
+static const struct s3c_rtc_data exynosautov9_rtc_data = {
+ .irq_handler = s3c6410_rtc_irq,
+ .enable = s3c24xx_rtc_enable,
+ .disable = exynosautov9_rtc_disable,
+};
+
static const __maybe_unused struct of_device_id s3c_rtc_dt_match[] = {
{
.compatible = "samsung,s3c2410-rtc",
@@ -590,6 +605,9 @@ static const __maybe_unused struct of_device_id s3c_rtc_dt_match[] = {
}, {
.compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-rtc",
.data = &s3c6410_rtc_data,
+ }, {
+ .compatible = "samsung,exynosautov9-rtc",
+ .data = &exynosautov9_rtc_data,
},
{ /* sentinel */ },
};
--
2.34.1
Hi Devang, On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 02:04:33PM +0530, Devang Tailor wrote: > The on-chip RTC of this SoC is almost similar to the previous > versions of SoC. Hence re-use the existing driver with platform specific > change to enable RTC. Could you please describe what the differences are to previous SoCs? You write almost similar, please elaborate in what way in commit message. > This has been tested with 'hwclock' & 'date' utilities > > Signed-off-by: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > --- > > drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > index 5dd575865adf..8db24b6360b8 100644 > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > @@ -384,6 +384,15 @@ static void s3c6410_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc *info) > writew(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); > } > > +static void exynosautov9_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc *info) > +{ > + unsigned int con; > + > + con = readb(info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); > + con &= ~S3C2410_RTCCON_RTCEN; > + writeb(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); > +} Rather than adding a new rtc_disable variant I think this could be handled in existing s3c24xx_rtc_disable (and I think that is what Krzysztof meant). How about adding a new bool to rtc_data that describes if S3C2410_TICNT reg is supported or not, and checking it in s3c24xx_rtc_disable? Best regards, Henrik Grimler > static void s3c_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > struct s3c_rtc *info = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > @@ -574,6 +583,12 @@ static struct s3c_rtc_data const s3c6410_rtc_data = { > .disable = s3c6410_rtc_disable, > }; > > +static const struct s3c_rtc_data exynosautov9_rtc_data = { > + .irq_handler = s3c6410_rtc_irq, > + .enable = s3c24xx_rtc_enable, > + .disable = exynosautov9_rtc_disable, > +}; > + > static const __maybe_unused struct of_device_id s3c_rtc_dt_match[] = { > { > .compatible = "samsung,s3c2410-rtc", > @@ -590,6 +605,9 @@ static const __maybe_unused struct of_device_id s3c_rtc_dt_match[] = { > }, { > .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-rtc", > .data = &s3c6410_rtc_data, > + }, { > + .compatible = "samsung,exynosautov9-rtc", > + .data = &exynosautov9_rtc_data, > }, > { /* sentinel */ }, > }; > -- > 2.34.1 > >
Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Henrik Grimler <henrik@grimler.se> > Sent: 04 September 2025 00:51 > To: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > Cc: robh@kernel.org; krzk+dt@kernel.org; conor+dt@kernel.org; > alim.akhtar@samsung.com; alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com; > devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- > samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > rtc@vger.kernel.org; faraz.ata@samsung.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] rtc: s3c: support for exynosautov9 on-chip RTC > > Hi Devang, > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 02:04:33PM +0530, Devang Tailor wrote: > > The on-chip RTC of this SoC is almost similar to the previous versions > > of SoC. Hence re-use the existing driver with platform specific change > > to enable RTC. > > Could you please describe what the differences are to previous SoCs? > You write almost similar, please elaborate in what way in commit message. Ok. I will add in V3. > > > This has been tested with 'hwclock' & 'date' utilities > > > > Signed-off-by: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > > --- > > > > drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c index > > 5dd575865adf..8db24b6360b8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > > @@ -384,6 +384,15 @@ static void s3c6410_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc > *info) > > writew(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); } > > > > +static void exynosautov9_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc *info) { > > + unsigned int con; > > + > > + con = readb(info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); > > + con &= ~S3C2410_RTCCON_RTCEN; > > + writeb(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); } > > Rather than adding a new rtc_disable variant I think this could be handled in > existing s3c24xx_rtc_disable (and I think that is what Krzysztof meant). How > about adding a new bool to rtc_data that describes if S3C2410_TICNT reg is > supported or not, and checking it in s3c24xx_rtc_disable? Ok. I will add bool 'use_s3c2410_ticnt´ to differentiate if any variant uses TICNT or not, making it 'true' for existing RTC variants which are using s3c24xx_rtc_disable(). > > Best regards, > Henrik Grimler > > > static void s3c_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) { > > struct s3c_rtc *info = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); @@ -574,6 +583,12 > > @@ static struct s3c_rtc_data const s3c6410_rtc_data = { > > .disable = s3c6410_rtc_disable, > > }; > > > > +static const struct s3c_rtc_data exynosautov9_rtc_data = { > > + .irq_handler = s3c6410_rtc_irq, > > + .enable = s3c24xx_rtc_enable, > > + .disable = exynosautov9_rtc_disable, > > +}; > > + > > static const __maybe_unused struct of_device_id s3c_rtc_dt_match[] = { > > { > > .compatible = "samsung,s3c2410-rtc", @@ -590,6 +605,9 @@ > static > > const __maybe_unused struct of_device_id s3c_rtc_dt_match[] = { > > }, { > > .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-rtc", > > .data = &s3c6410_rtc_data, > > + }, { > > + .compatible = "samsung,exynosautov9-rtc", > > + .data = &exynosautov9_rtc_data, > > }, > > { /* sentinel */ }, > > }; > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 2:05 PM > To: robh@kernel.org; krzk+dt@kernel.org; conor+dt@kernel.org; > alim.akhtar@samsung.com; alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com; > devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- > samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > rtc@vger.kernel.org; faraz.ata@samsung.com > Cc: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] rtc: s3c: support for exynosautov9 on-chip RTC > > The on-chip RTC of this SoC is almost similar to the previous versions of SoC. > Hence re-use the existing driver with platform specific change to enable RTC. > > This has been tested with 'hwclock' & 'date' utilities > > Signed-off-by: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > --- Reviewed-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 02:04:33PM +0530, Devang Tailor wrote: > The on-chip RTC of this SoC is almost similar to the previous > versions of SoC. Hence re-use the existing driver with platform specific > change to enable RTC. > > This has been tested with 'hwclock' & 'date' utilities > > Signed-off-by: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > --- > drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > index 5dd575865adf..8db24b6360b8 100644 > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > @@ -384,6 +384,15 @@ static void s3c6410_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc *info) > writew(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); > } > > +static void exynosautov9_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc *info) > +{ > + unsigned int con; > + > + con = readb(info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); > + con &= ~S3C2410_RTCCON_RTCEN; > + writeb(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); > +} Looks a lot like s3c24xx_rtc_disable()... Anyway, if you keep ignoring the review, no point to provide reviews here. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof, > -----Original Message----- > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > Sent: 11 July 2025 12:51 > To: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > Cc: robh@kernel.org; krzk+dt@kernel.org; conor+dt@kernel.org; > alim.akhtar@samsung.com; alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com; > devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux- > samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > rtc@vger.kernel.org; faraz.ata@samsung.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] rtc: s3c: support for exynosautov9 on-chip RTC > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 02:04:33PM +0530, Devang Tailor wrote: > > The on-chip RTC of this SoC is almost similar to the previous versions > > of SoC. Hence re-use the existing driver with platform specific change > > to enable RTC. > > > > This has been tested with 'hwclock' & 'date' utilities > > > > Signed-off-by: Devang Tailor <dev.tailor@samsung.com> > > --- > > drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c index > > 5dd575865adf..8db24b6360b8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > > @@ -384,6 +384,15 @@ static void s3c6410_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc > *info) > > writew(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); } > > > > +static void exynosautov9_rtc_disable(struct s3c_rtc *info) { > > + unsigned int con; > > + > > + con = readb(info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); > > + con &= ~S3C2410_RTCCON_RTCEN; > > + writeb(con, info->base + S3C2410_RTCCON); } > > Looks a lot like s3c24xx_rtc_disable()... > > Anyway, if you keep ignoring the review, no point to provide reviews here. > I have removed the redundant code I had added in V1 considering your review comment for asymmetry code. s3c24xx_rtc_disable() & s3c6410_rtc_disable() updates additional bit, which is not valid for ExynosAutov9 (only RTCCON[4:0] are valid), hence I added this and mentioned in V2 cover letter as well. Please let me know if I am missing anything. > Best regards, > Krzysztof
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.