diff mbox

[V1,3/6] rtc: da9062: DA9062 RTC driver

Message ID 860a3b6dc7f8dac95c0e36967f24551af8805f7b.1429280614.git.stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com
State Superseded
Headers show

Commit Message

Steve Twiss April 17, 2015, 2:23 p.m. UTC
From: S Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>

Add RTC driver support for DA9062

Signed-off-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>

---

This patch applies against linux-next and v4.0 



 drivers/rtc/Kconfig      |  10 ++
 drivers/rtc/Makefile     |   1 +
 drivers/rtc/rtc-da9062.c | 367 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 378 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-da9062.c

Comments

Alexandre Belloni May 10, 2015, 9:58 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi,

On 17/04/2015 at 15:23:33 +0100, S Twiss wrote :
> From: S Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>
> 
> Add RTC driver support for DA9062
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> This patch applies against linux-next and v4.0 
> 
> 
> 
>  drivers/rtc/Kconfig      |  10 ++
>  drivers/rtc/Makefile     |   1 +
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-da9062.c | 367 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 378 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-da9062.c
> 

This is an almost exact copy of drivers/rtc/rtc-da9063.c, apart from the
retry mechanism in read_time. Can you simply add support for the da9062
in that driver?

Thanks!
Steve Twiss May 13, 2015, 12:31 p.m. UTC | #2
On 10 May 2015 10:59 Alexandre Belloni wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 17/04/2015 at 15:23:33 +0100, S Twiss wrote :
> > From: S Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>
> >
> > Add RTC driver support for DA9062

[...]

> This is an almost exact copy of drivers/rtc/rtc-da9063.c, apart from the
> retry mechanism in read_time. Can you simply add support for the da9062
> in that driver?


Hi Alexandre,

Something similar is being discussed for the OnKey component of the DA9062.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/24/304

It is only the OnKey and RTC components that are similar to the DA9063 chip
and I was hoping to keep the 62 RTC separate in this case ... however it should
definitely be possible to re-use the DA9063 RTC driver if this is your requirement.
If this will block my submission of the DA9062 then I will drop the RTC from my
next patch set and try to re-work the existing 63 RTC driver accordingly.

I think this sort of thing has been done before:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
 ... at first glance -- it seems to support that sort of thing.

I guess it would be possible to rename the da9063-rtc to something more sensible like
da9xxx-rtc.c if this goes ahead?

Regards,
Steve
Alexandre Belloni May 13, 2015, 12:58 p.m. UTC | #3
Hi,

On 13/05/2015 at 12:31:36 +0000, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote :
> Something similar is being discussed for the OnKey component of the DA9062.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/24/304
> 
> It is only the OnKey and RTC components that are similar to the DA9063 chip
> and I was hoping to keep the 62 RTC separate in this case ... however it should
> definitely be possible to re-use the DA9063 RTC driver if this is your requirement.
> If this will block my submission of the DA9062 then I will drop the RTC from my
> next patch set and try to re-work the existing 63 RTC driver accordingly.
> 
> I think this sort of thing has been done before:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
>  ... at first glance -- it seems to support that sort of thing.
> 

Isn't that exactly the point of using the MFD infrastructure? It allows
to reuse existing drivers even when the IP is part of a different chip.
The RTC inside the da9062 and the da9063 are obviously the same so there
is no point in duplicating the driver.

I'm guessing using da9063-rtc instead of da9062-rtc is just working
fine.

> I guess it would be possible to rename the da9063-rtc to something more sensible like
> da9xxx-rtc.c if this goes ahead?
> 

Sure, that can be done but this means that the module name will change.
if you feel that your current users can cope with that, I'm fine with it.
Guenter Roeck May 13, 2015, 1:04 p.m. UTC | #4
On 05/13/2015 05:58 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/05/2015 at 12:31:36 +0000, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote :
>> Something similar is being discussed for the OnKey component of the DA9062.
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/24/304
>>
>> It is only the OnKey and RTC components that are similar to the DA9063 chip
>> and I was hoping to keep the 62 RTC separate in this case ... however it should
>> definitely be possible to re-use the DA9063 RTC driver if this is your requirement.
>> If this will block my submission of the DA9062 then I will drop the RTC from my
>> next patch set and try to re-work the existing 63 RTC driver accordingly.
>>
>> I think this sort of thing has been done before:
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
>>   ... at first glance -- it seems to support that sort of thing.
>>
>
> Isn't that exactly the point of using the MFD infrastructure? It allows
> to reuse existing drivers even when the IP is part of a different chip.
> The RTC inside the da9062 and the da9063 are obviously the same so there
> is no point in duplicating the driver.
>
> I'm guessing using da9063-rtc instead of da9062-rtc is just working
> fine.
>
>> I guess it would be possible to rename the da9063-rtc to something more sensible like
>> da9xxx-rtc.c if this goes ahead?
>>
>
> Sure, that can be done but this means that the module name will change.
> if you feel that your current users can cope with that, I'm fine with it.
>
Don't know how this is handled for rtc drivers, but in other subsystems
we just live with the original name. I don't see a need to rename a driver
just because it starts supporting more hardware, and xxx is weird anyway
since it suggests everything from 000 to 999, which is much worse than
just sticking with 9063.

Guenter
Alexandre Belloni May 13, 2015, 1:37 p.m. UTC | #5
On 13/05/2015 at 06:04:47 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote :
> Don't know how this is handled for rtc drivers, but in other subsystems
> we just live with the original name. I don't see a need to rename a driver
> just because it starts supporting more hardware, and xxx is weird anyway
> since it suggests everything from 000 to 999, which is much worse than
> just sticking with 9063.
> 

Yes, in particular if at some point in time a new IP matching those xxx
is completely different from the previous one. I'm not fond of renaming
the driver either but if diasemi thinks that what they want, I'm open to
let it happen. But clearly, I don't want to end up in a situation like
the tlv320aic where you don't know which driver correspond to which
chip:

sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic31xx.c
sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic31xx.h
sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic32x4.c
sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic32x4.h
sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic3x.c
sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic3x.h
sound/soc/codecs/tlv320dac33.c
sound/soc/codecs/tlv320dac33.h

Go figure that the tlv320aic3104 can be supported by both tlv320aic3x.c
and tlv320aic32x4.c but not tlv320aic31xx.c...
Guenter Roeck May 13, 2015, 1:46 p.m. UTC | #6
On 05/13/2015 06:37 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 13/05/2015 at 06:04:47 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote :
>> Don't know how this is handled for rtc drivers, but in other subsystems
>> we just live with the original name. I don't see a need to rename a driver
>> just because it starts supporting more hardware, and xxx is weird anyway
>> since it suggests everything from 000 to 999, which is much worse than
>> just sticking with 9063.
>>
>
> Yes, in particular if at some point in time a new IP matching those xxx
> is completely different from the previous one. I'm not fond of renaming
> the driver either but if diasemi thinks that what they want, I'm open to
> let it happen. But clearly, I don't want to end up in a situation like
> the tlv320aic where you don't know which driver correspond to which
> chip:
>
> sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic31xx.c
> sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic31xx.h
> sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic32x4.c
> sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic32x4.h
> sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic3x.c
> sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic3x.h
> sound/soc/codecs/tlv320dac33.c
> sound/soc/codecs/tlv320dac33.h
>
> Go figure that the tlv320aic3104 can be supported by both tlv320aic3x.c
> and tlv320aic32x4.c but not tlv320aic31xx.c...
>

Unfortunately that is exactly what is going to happen.

Guenter
Steve Twiss May 13, 2015, 2:56 p.m. UTC | #7
Hi Guenter & Alexandre,

On 13 May 2015 14:47 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/13/2015 06:37 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 13/05/2015 at 06:04:47 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote :
> >> Don't know how this is handled for rtc drivers, but in other subsystems
> >> we just live with the original name. I don't see a need to rename a driver
> >> just because it starts supporting more hardware, and xxx is weird anyway
> >> since it suggests everything from 000 to 999, which is much worse than
> >> just sticking with 9063.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, in particular if at some point in time a new IP matching those xxx
> > is completely different from the previous one. I'm not fond of renaming
> > the driver either but if diasemi thinks that what they want, I'm open to
> > let it happen. But clearly, I don't want to end up in a situation like
> > the tlv320aic where you don't know which driver correspond to which
> > chip:
> >
> > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic31xx.c
> > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic31xx.h
> > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic32x4.c
> > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic32x4.h
> > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic3x.c
> > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic3x.h
> > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320dac33.c
> > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320dac33.h
> >
> > Go figure that the tlv320aic3104 can be supported by both tlv320aic3x.c
> > and tlv320aic32x4.c but not tlv320aic31xx.c...
> >
> 
> Unfortunately that is exactly what is going to happen.

Thanks for this clarification.
We'll follow your advice and keep the name as da9063

Regards,
Steve
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
index b5b5c3d..c4d21bd 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
@@ -927,6 +927,16 @@  config RTC_DRV_DA9055
 	  This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
 	  will be called rtc-da9055
 
+config RTC_DRV_DA9062
+	tristate "Dialog Semiconductor DA9062 RTC"
+	depends on MFD_DA9062
+	help
+	  If you say yes here you will get support for the RTC subsystem
+	  of the Dialog Semiconductor DA9062.
+
+	  This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
+	  will be called "rtc-da9062".
+
 config RTC_DRV_DA9063
 	tristate "Dialog Semiconductor DA9063 RTC"
 	depends on MFD_DA9063
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Makefile b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
index 69c8706..9108e62 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@  obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_CMOS)	+= rtc-cmos.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_COH901331)	+= rtc-coh901331.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DA9052)	+= rtc-da9052.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DA9055)	+= rtc-da9055.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DA9062)	+= rtc-da9062.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DA9063)	+= rtc-da9063.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DAVINCI)	+= rtc-davinci.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DM355EVM)	+= rtc-dm355evm.o
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-da9062.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-da9062.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0f3d646
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-da9062.c
@@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ 
+/*
+ * rtc-da9062.c - RTC device driver for DA9062
+ * Copyright (C) 2015  Dialog Semiconductor Ltd.
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+ * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
+ * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
+ * of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+ *
+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ */
+
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/interrupt.h>
+#include <linux/rtc.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/delay.h>
+#include <linux/regmap.h>
+#include <linux/mfd/da9062/registers.h>
+#include <linux/mfd/da9062/core.h>
+
+#define DA9062_GET_TIME_RETRIES	5
+
+#define YEARS_TO_DA9062(year)		((year) - 100)
+#define MONTHS_TO_DA9062(month)		((month) + 1)
+#define YEARS_FROM_DA9062(year)		((year) + 100)
+#define MONTHS_FROM_DA9062(month)	((month) - 1)
+
+#define RTC_DATA_LEN	(DA9062AA_COUNT_Y - DA9062AA_COUNT_S + 1)
+enum {
+	RTC_SEC = 0,
+	RTC_MIN = 1,
+	RTC_HOUR = 2,
+	RTC_DAY = 3,
+	RTC_MONTH = 4,
+	RTC_YEAR = 5,
+};
+
+#define DA9062AA_ALARM_STATUS_ENUM_TIMER (0x02 << 6)
+
+struct da9062_rtc {
+	struct rtc_device *rtc_dev;
+	struct da9062 *hw;
+	struct rtc_time alarm_time;
+	bool rtc_sync;
+};
+
+static void da9062_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm)
+{
+	tm->tm_sec  = data[RTC_SEC]  & DA9062AA_COUNT_SEC_MASK;
+	tm->tm_min  = data[RTC_MIN]  & DA9062AA_COUNT_MIN_MASK;
+	tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & DA9062AA_COUNT_HOUR_MASK;
+	tm->tm_mday = data[RTC_DAY]  & DA9062AA_COUNT_DAY_MASK;
+	tm->tm_mon  = MONTHS_FROM_DA9062(data[RTC_MONTH] &
+					 DA9062AA_COUNT_MONTH_MASK);
+	tm->tm_year = YEARS_FROM_DA9062(data[RTC_YEAR] &
+					DA9062AA_COUNT_YEAR_MASK);
+}
+
+static void da9062_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data)
+{
+	data[RTC_SEC] &= ~DA9062AA_COUNT_SEC_MASK;
+	data[RTC_SEC] |= tm->tm_sec & DA9062AA_COUNT_SEC_MASK;
+
+	data[RTC_MIN] &= ~DA9062AA_COUNT_MIN_MASK;
+	data[RTC_MIN] |= tm->tm_min & DA9062AA_COUNT_MIN_MASK;
+
+	data[RTC_HOUR] &= ~DA9062AA_COUNT_HOUR_MASK;
+	data[RTC_HOUR] |= tm->tm_hour & DA9062AA_COUNT_HOUR_MASK;
+
+	data[RTC_DAY] &= ~DA9062AA_COUNT_DAY_MASK;
+	data[RTC_DAY] |= tm->tm_mday & DA9062AA_COUNT_DAY_MASK;
+
+	data[RTC_MONTH] &= ~DA9062AA_COUNT_MONTH_MASK;
+	data[RTC_MONTH] |= MONTHS_TO_DA9062(tm->tm_mon) &
+				DA9062AA_COUNT_MONTH_MASK;
+
+	data[RTC_YEAR] &= ~DA9062AA_COUNT_YEAR_MASK;
+	data[RTC_YEAR] |= YEARS_TO_DA9062(tm->tm_year) &
+				DA9062AA_COUNT_YEAR_MASK;
+}
+
+static int da9062_rtc_stop_alarm(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct da9062_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+	return regmap_update_bits(rtc->hw->regmap,
+				  DA9062AA_ALARM_Y,
+				  DA9062AA_ALARM_ON_MASK,
+				  0);
+}
+
+static int da9062_rtc_start_alarm(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct da9062_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+	return regmap_update_bits(rtc->hw->regmap,
+				  DA9062AA_ALARM_Y,
+				  DA9062AA_ALARM_ON_MASK,
+				  DA9062AA_ALARM_ON_MASK);
+}
+
+static int da9062_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
+{
+	struct da9062_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+	unsigned long tm_secs;
+	unsigned long al_secs;
+	u8 data[RTC_DATA_LEN];
+	int timeout = DA9062_GET_TIME_RETRIES;
+	bool read_done = false;
+	int ret;
+
+	while (timeout--) {
+		ret = regmap_bulk_read(rtc->hw->regmap, DA9062AA_COUNT_S,
+				       data, RTC_DATA_LEN);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			dev_err(dev, "Failed to read RTC time data: %d\n", ret);
+			return ret;
+		}
+
+		/* rtc ready to be read by the host */
+		if (data[RTC_SEC] & DA9062AA_RTC_READ_MASK) {
+			timeout = 0;
+			read_done = true;
+		}
+
+		msleep(20);
+	}
+
+	if (!read_done) {
+		dev_err(dev, "Failed to read the RTC time\n");
+		return -EIO;
+	}
+
+	da9062_data_to_tm(data, tm);
+
+	rtc_tm_to_time(tm, &tm_secs);
+	rtc_tm_to_time(&rtc->alarm_time, &al_secs);
+
+	/* handle the rtc synchronisation delay */
+	if (rtc->rtc_sync == true && al_secs - tm_secs == 1)
+		memcpy(tm, &rtc->alarm_time, sizeof(struct rtc_time));
+	else
+		rtc->rtc_sync = false;
+
+	return rtc_valid_tm(tm);
+}
+
+static int da9062_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
+{
+	struct da9062_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+	u8 data[RTC_DATA_LEN];
+	int ret;
+
+	da9062_tm_to_data(tm, data);
+	ret = regmap_bulk_write(rtc->hw->regmap, DA9062AA_COUNT_S,
+				data, RTC_DATA_LEN);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		dev_err(dev, "Failed to set RTC time data: %d\n", ret);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int da9062_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
+{
+	struct da9062_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+	u8 data[RTC_DATA_LEN];
+	int ret;
+	unsigned int val;
+
+	data[RTC_SEC] = 0;
+	ret = regmap_bulk_read(rtc->hw->regmap, DA9062AA_ALARM_S,
+			       &data[RTC_SEC], RTC_DATA_LEN);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		return ret;
+
+	da9062_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time);
+
+	alrm->enabled = !!(data[RTC_YEAR] & DA9062AA_ALARM_ON_MASK);
+
+	ret = regmap_read(rtc->hw->regmap, DA9062AA_EVENT_A, &val);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		return ret;
+
+	if (val & DA9062AA_M_ALARM_MASK)
+		alrm->pending = 1;
+	else
+		alrm->pending = 0;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int da9062_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
+{
+	struct da9062_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+	u8 data[RTC_DATA_LEN];
+	int ret;
+
+	da9062_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data);
+
+	ret = da9062_rtc_stop_alarm(dev);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(dev, "Failed to stop alarm: %d\n", ret);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	ret = regmap_bulk_write(rtc->hw->regmap, DA9062AA_ALARM_S,
+			       &data[RTC_SEC], RTC_DATA_LEN);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(dev, "Failed to write alarm: %d\n", ret);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	da9062_data_to_tm(data, &rtc->alarm_time);
+
+	if (alrm->enabled) {
+		ret = da9062_rtc_start_alarm(dev);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			dev_err(dev, "Failed to start alarm: %d\n", ret);
+			return ret;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int da9062_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(struct device *dev, unsigned int enabled)
+{
+	if (enabled)
+		return da9062_rtc_start_alarm(dev);
+	else
+		return da9062_rtc_stop_alarm(dev);
+}
+
+static irqreturn_t da9062_alarm_event(int irq, void *data)
+{
+	struct da9062_rtc *rtc = data;
+
+	regmap_update_bits(rtc->hw->regmap,
+			   DA9062AA_ALARM_Y,
+			   DA9062AA_ALARM_ON_MASK,
+			   0);
+
+	rtc->rtc_sync = true;
+	rtc_update_irq(rtc->rtc_dev, 1, RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF);
+
+	return IRQ_HANDLED;
+}
+
+static const struct rtc_class_ops da9062_rtc_ops = {
+	.read_time = da9062_rtc_read_time,
+	.set_time = da9062_rtc_set_time,
+	.read_alarm = da9062_rtc_read_alarm,
+	.set_alarm = da9062_rtc_set_alarm,
+	.alarm_irq_enable = da9062_rtc_alarm_irq_enable,
+};
+
+static int da9062_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+	struct da9062 *chip = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
+	struct da9062_rtc *rtc;
+	int irq_alarm;
+	u8 data[RTC_DATA_LEN];
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
+				 DA9062AA_CONTROL_E,
+				 DA9062AA_RTC_EN_MASK,
+				 DA9062AA_RTC_EN_MASK);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to enable RTC\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	ret = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
+				 DA9062AA_EN_32K,
+				 DA9062AA_CRYSTAL_MASK,
+				 DA9062AA_CRYSTAL_MASK);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to run 32kHz oscillator\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	rtc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*rtc), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!rtc)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	ret = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
+				 DA9062AA_ALARM_S,
+				 DA9062AA_ALARM_STATUS_MASK,
+				 0);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to access RTC alarm register\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	ret = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
+				 DA9062AA_ALARM_S,
+				 DA9062AA_ALARM_STATUS_ENUM_TIMER,
+				 DA9062AA_ALARM_STATUS_ENUM_TIMER);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to access RTC alarm register\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	ret = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
+				 DA9062AA_ALARM_Y,
+				 DA9062AA_TICK_ON_MASK,
+				 0);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to disable TICKs\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	data[RTC_SEC] = 0;
+	ret = regmap_bulk_read(chip->regmap, DA9062AA_ALARM_S,
+			       &data[RTC_SEC], RTC_DATA_LEN);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to read initial alarm data: %d\n",
+			ret);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc);
+
+	irq_alarm = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "ALARM");
+	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq_alarm, NULL,
+					da9062_alarm_event,
+					IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
+					"ALARM", rtc);
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to request ALARM IRQ %d: %d\n",
+			irq_alarm, ret);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	rtc->hw = chip;
+	rtc->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, "da9062-rtc",
+					   &da9062_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
+	if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev))
+		return PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev);
+
+	da9062_data_to_tm(data, &rtc->alarm_time);
+	rtc->rtc_sync = false;
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static struct platform_driver da9062_rtc_driver = {
+	.probe		= da9062_rtc_probe,
+	.driver		= {
+		.name	= "da9062-rtc",
+		.owner	= THIS_MODULE,
+	},
+};
+
+module_platform_driver(da9062_rtc_driver);
+
+MODULE_AUTHOR("S Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RTC device driver for Dialog DA9062");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
+MODULE_ALIAS("platform: da9062-rtc");