Re: [PATCH v8 15/26] pwm: jz4740: Add support for the JZ4725B - Uwe Kleine-König

From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	"thierry.reding@gmail.com" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
	paul.burton@mips.com, James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>,
	ezequiel@collabora.co.uk, prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LINUXWATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
	od@zcrc.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 15/26] pwm: jz4740: Add support for the JZ4725B
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:26:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181214142628.zwi4hadrju53z6f3@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdbABtDgwKai=8Pfji7qVb-XHsX8pDsuDdS5hhg7qEN0Bw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 02:50:20PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 9:42 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > [Adding Linus Walleij to Cc:]
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:03:15PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > Le jeu. 13 déc. 2018 à 10:24, Uwe Kleine-König
> > > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> a écrit :
> > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > > >  The PWM in the JZ4725B works the same as in the JZ4740, except that
> > > > > it
> > > > >  only has 6 channels available instead of 8.
> > > >
> > > > this driver is probed only from device tree? If yes, it might be
> > > > sensible to specify the number of PWMs there and get it from there.
> > > > There doesn't seem to be a generic binding for that, but there are
> > > > several drivers that could benefit from it. (This is a bigger project
> > > > though and shouldn't stop your patch. Still more as it already got
> > > > Thierry's ack.)
> > >
> > > I think there needs to be a proper guideline, as there doesn't seem to be
> > > a consensus about this. I learned from emails with Rob and Linus (Walleij)
> > > that I should not have in devicetree what I can deduce from the compatible
> > > string.
> >
> > I understood them a bit differently. It is ok to deduce things from the
> > compatible string. But if you define a generic property (say) "num-pwms"
> > that is used uniformly in most bindings this is ok, too. (And then the
> > two different devices could use the same compatible.)
> >
> > An upside of the generic "num-pwms" property is that the pwm core could
> > sanity check pwm phandles before passing them to the hardware drivers.
> 
> I don't know if this helps, but in GPIO we have "ngpios" which is
> used to augment an existing block as to the number of lines actually
> used with it.
> 
> The typical case is that an ASIC engineer synthesize a block for
> 32 GPIOs but only 12 of them are routed to external pads. So
> we augment the behaviour of that driver to only use 12 of the
> 32 lines.
> 
> I guess using the remaining 20 lines "works" in a sense but they
> have no practical use and will just bias electrons in the silicon
> for no use.

This looks very similar to the case under discussion.

> So if the PWM case is something similar, then by all means add
> num-pwms.

.. or "npwms" to use the same nomenclature as the gpio binding?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |