From: Thierry Reding <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Lee Jones <email@example.com> Cc: Rob Herring <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 20/20] dt-bindings: pwm: sti: Update DT bindings with recent changes Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:53:23 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160610145323.GO27142@ulmo.ba.sec> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160610140635.GC1537@dell> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5723 bytes --] On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:41:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 10:21:35AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > We're renaming the 'st,pwm-num-chan' binding to 'st,pwm-num-devs' to > > > > > be more inline with the naming conventions of the subsystem. Where > > > > > we used to treat each line as a channel, the PWM convention is to > > > > > describe them as devices. > > > > > > > > That's all linux implementation details and you are breaking > > > > compatibility. > > > > > > Normally I'd agree with you, but I happen to know that a) this IP is > > > currently unused and b) up until this point (and probably beyond), ST > > > always ship the DTB with the kernel, so there will be no breakage. > > > > Heh... I've long given up on trying to make that argument go anywhere. > > The general rule is that once we support a binding in a kernel release > > we have to support it indefinitely. If you really want to go ahead with > > this change (I don't think you should), you'd at least have to document > > both properties and support st,pwm-num-chan in the driver for backwards > > compatibility. > > I understand what the *general* rule is, but we have to remember why > this rule was put into place and apply some common sense. In some > Enterprise user-cases where DTBs are written into ROM or where they > are difficult /impossible to update, I can completely understand the > requirement to support previous incarnations. However in this, the > real world, DTBs are shipped with their corresponding kernels. We > would lack a great deal of functionality if they weren't. It is > therefor, foolhardy and inappropriate to stick to this rule just > 'cos. I used to advocate the very same point of view a couple of years ago but was repeatedly told that it's irrelevant, and everybody was to be held to the same standards, irrespective of how easy it is to update the DTB in lockstep with the kernel. Part of me still wishes that the rules were a little less strict, but a decision was made on this years ago, so I'm just repeating this here in an attempt to save you from wasting your time arguing. Then again, there have been occasions where decisions were undone, so you might have better luck nowadays if you're willing to take this to the DT bindings and ARM-SoC maintainers. Bottom line: NAK on the backwards-incompatible DT binding change from me based on earlier decisions made on this topic. But I may be swayed if everyone else thinks ABI stability is no longer something we consider important for DT. > > > > > 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! > > Also, why make a separation of output vs. capture channels at this > > point? Could you not simply obtain the total number of PWM channels, > > preferably from SoC data associated with the compatible string, and > > check at ->capture() time whether or not the particular PWM supports > > this? > > > > As-is, you imply that you have n (output) + m (capture) channels, and > > that 0..n-1 are output and n..n+m-1 are capture channels. What if that > > no longer holds true, but 0 and 2 are the only ones that support > > capture? > > We do? What makes you think that? Because there's nothing saying otherwise? The DT binding is completely silent on the matter, and the above is the most logical interpretation that I came up with. Looking at the driver it seems like it's actually the other way around and you have the first m channels that support both output and capture functionality. But the issue remains that this isn't documented in the DT binding documentation. And the current properties are also not very flexible because they allow for only a single scheme of assigning the capability. If you move all of that knowledge into the driver, things become a lot easier, in my opinion. > > If you check for this at runtime you can avoid complicated DT parsing > > code, but still get the safety check which should be enough to encourage > > people to use the right channels in DT. > > I'm pretty sure I can move all the data into the driver. I did want > to avoid having lots of different compatible strings, but if that's > what you're suggesting, I can introduce one per supported platform. That sounds like the simplest solution to me. Thierry [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-10 14:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-06-08 9:21 [PATCH v3 00/20] pwm: Add support for PWM Capture Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 01/20] ARM: dts: STi: Rename properites in line with PWM naming conventions Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 02/20] ARM: dts: STiH407: Supply PWM Capture IRQ Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 03/20] ARM: dts: STiH407: Declare PWM Capture data lines via Pinctrl Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 04/20] ARM: dts: STiH416: Supply PWM Capture IRQs Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 05/20] ARM: dts: STiH416: Declare PWM Capture data lines via Pinctrl Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 06/20] ARM: dts: STiH416: Define PWM Capture clock Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 07/20] ARM: dts: STiH416: Define the number of PWM Capture channels Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 08/20] pwm: Add PWM Capture support Lee Jones 2016-06-10 13:53 ` Thierry Reding 2016-06-10 14:38 ` Lee Jones 2016-06-10 16:39 ` Thierry Reding 2016-06-20 11:14 ` Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 09/20] pwm: sti: Rename channel => device Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 10/20] pwm: sysfs: Add PWM Capture support Lee Jones 2016-06-10 14:04 ` Thierry Reding 2016-06-10 14:36 ` Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 11/20] pwm: sti: Reorganise register names in preparation for new functionality Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 12/20] pwm: sti: Only request clock rate when you need to Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 13/20] pwm: sti: Supply PWM Capture register addresses and bit locations Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 14/20] pwm: sti: Supply PWM Capture clock handling Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 15/20] pwm: sti: Initialise PWM Capture device data Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 16/20] pwm: sti: Add support for PWM Capture IRQs Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 17/20] pwm: sti: Add PWM Capture call-back Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 18/20] pwm: sti: It's now valid for number of PWM channels to be zero Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 19/20] pwm: sti: Take the opportunity to conduct a little house keeping Lee Jones 2016-06-08 9:21 ` [PATCH v3 20/20] dt-bindings: pwm: sti: Update DT bindings with recent changes Lee Jones 2016-06-08 20:51 ` Rob Herring 2016-06-09 11:41 ` Lee Jones 2016-06-10 13:18 ` Thierry Reding 2016-06-10 14:06 ` Lee Jones 2016-06-10 14:53 ` Thierry Reding [this message] 2016-06-10 15:19 ` Lee Jones 2016-07-13 9:02 ` Lee Jones 2016-06-10 13:10 ` Thierry Reding
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160610145323.GO27142@ulmo.ba.sec \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v3 20/20] dt-bindings: pwm: sti: Update DT bindings with recent changes' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).