On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr. [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Rob,

On 03/02/2016 12:26 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:36:36PM -0600, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:

quoted

From: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>

Add PWMSS device tree nodes for DRA7 SoC family and add documentation
for dt bindings.

Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>
---
Version 3 changes:
None

 .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt       |  8 +++
 .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tipwmss.txt        | 17 +++++-
 arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi                        | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
index 9c100b2..25d91ae 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ Required properties:
 - compatible: Must be "ti,<soc>-ehrpwm".
   for am33xx - compatible = "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
   for da850  - compatible = "ti,da850-ehrpwm", "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
+  for dra7xx - compatible = "ti,dra7xx-ehrpwm", "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";

We're starting to push back on wildcards in compatible strings. I guess
this is okay...

quoted

 - #pwm-cells: should be 3. See pwm.txt in this directory for a description of
   the cells format. The only third cell flag supported by this binding is
   PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED.

@@ -27,3 +28,10 @@ ehrpwm0: ehrpwm at 0 { /* EHRPWM on da850 */
     #pwm-cells = <3>;
     reg = <0x300000 0x2000>;
 };
+
+ehrpwm0: ehrpwm at 0 { /* EHRPWM on dra7xx */

Should be pwm at 48440200

So the AM335x, AM437x  and DA850 all use ehrpwm0:
ehrpwm@<address>. Also the address of 0 simply follows the
pattern used in the other binding examples in that doc. I
can replace the 0 address in this patch and make another
patch that fixes it for the other examples in that file. But
in terms of switching from ehrpwm0:ehrpwm@<address> to
ehrpwm0:pwm@<address> that would also require making changes
to the various dtsis also. So is it worth making that
change? If so I have no problem doing it.

Follow-up patches to fix are fine. Unit-address and reg mismatches are
going to start warning in dtc soon.

Rob