Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: timer: Add Tegra186 & Tegra234 Timer

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1553 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:58:59PM +0530, Kartik wrote:
> The Tegra186 timer provides ten 29-bit timer counters and one 32-bit
> timestamp counter. The Tegra234 timer provides sixteen 29-bit timer
> counters and one 32-bit timestamp counter. Each NV timer selects its
> timing reference signal from the 1 MHz reference generated by USEC,
> TSC or either clk_m or OSC. Each TMR can be programmed to generate
> one-shot, periodic, or watchdog interrupts.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kartik <kkartik@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  .../bindings/timer/nvidia,tegra186-timer.yaml | 111 ++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 111 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/nvidia,tegra186-timer.yaml

Rob, I've been wondering about patch application with these DT bindings.
In the past I've preferred to apply these along with the driver changes
that implement the bindings. I realize now that that's perhaps a bit
naive because we've had cases where the driver doesn't fully implement
everything in the binding as well as cases where the bindings are
upstreamed without the driver necessarily being upstreamed at the same
time.

So I'm thinking that it makes more sense to apply the DT bindings to the
same tree as the DT changes that add corresponding DT nodes. This would
also get rid of the (usually temporary) inconsistencies when running the
DT validation (and even just something like checkpatch) on a DT tree
that doesn't have corresponding DT bindings.

Do you have any strong preference on this?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]