Re: [PATCH v3 20/20] dt-bindings: pwm: sti: Update DT bindings with recent changes
From: Lee Jones <hidden>
Date: 2016-07-13 09:02:00
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-pwm, lkml
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:quoted
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Thierry Reding wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
The second documentation adaption entails adding support for PWM capture devices. A new clock is required as well as an IRQ line. We're also adding a new property similar to the one described above, but for capture channels. Typically, there will be less capture channels than PWM-out, since all channels have the latter capability, but only some have capture support.Humm, sounds like all of this should be implied from compatible strings.You mean have a bunch of of_machine_is_compatibles() scattered around?I don't understand why you need this at all. Quite frankly I don't even know why st,pwm-num-devs exists. I probably missed it back at the time. Usually, like Rob suggests, this should be inferred from the compatible string. One commonly used way to avoid scattering explicit checks for the compatible string is to add this information to the of_device_id table. See a bunch of existing drivers for reference.Yes, I am aware of the strategy, and happy to oblige if this is your suggestion. I'll move all platform data into the driver and eradicate the DT properties.Great!
Sorry it's taken so long to get back around to this. So I just had a crack at implementing this solution and ran into issues. Unfortunately, the configuration isn't easy to describe using compatible strings. Unless we are prepared to have strings like: st,sti-pwm-stih407-pwm0 st,sti-pwm-stih407-pwm1 st,sti-pwm-stih416-pwm0 st,sti-pwm-stih416-pwm1 Or perhaps: st,sti-pwm-4out-2cpt st,sti-pwm-1out-1cpt ... since some of the PWMs have an odd number of OUT and CPT channels/devices. In my opinion however, this is ugly. I don't think we do this for any other type of channel/device/port etc, do we? Personally I think there isn't anything wrong with having DT properties describing how many channels/devices there are, but I'm okay with whatever you both decide. No skin of my nose really. :) What say you? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel