On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:21:30AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:54:26 +0300, Aleksandr Shubin wrote:

quoted

Allwinner's D1, T113-S3 and R329 SoCs have a new pwm
controller witch is different from the previous pwm-sun4i.

The D1 and T113 are identical in terms of peripherals,
they differ only in the architecture of the CPU core, and
even share the majority of their DT. Because of that,
using the same compatible makes sense.
The R329 is a different SoC though, and should have
a different compatible string added, especially as there
is a difference in the number of channels.

D1 and T113s SoCs have one PWM controller with 8 channels.
R329 SoC has two PWM controllers in both power domains, one of
them has 9 channels (CPUX one) and the other has 6 (CPUS one).

Add a device tree binding for them.

Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Shubin <redacted>
---
 .../bindings/pwm/allwinner,sun20i-pwm.yaml    | 86 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/allwinner,sun20i-pwm.yaml

My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):

yamllint warnings/errors:

dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:


doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):

See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20230810145443.1053387-2-privatesub2@gmail.com

The bot was having an issue. This can be ignored.

Rob

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel