On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 06:41:39AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
> On 26.05.2023 09:23, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 04:47:28AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
> >> On 25.05.2023 20:14, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>> Convert Microchip PIT64B to YAML. Along with it clock-names binding has
> >>>> been added as the driver needs it to get PIT64B clocks.
> >>> I don't think both of these PIT things need to have different binding
> >>> files. 90% of it is the same, just the clock-names/number - so you can
> >>
> >> But these are different hardware blocks with different functionalities and
> >> different drivers.
> > 
> > Having different drivers doesn't preclude having them in the same
> > binding provided the function/description etc are more or less
> > identical. I was confused by:
> > 
> > +description:
> > +  The 64-bit periodic interval timer provides the operating system scheduler
> > +  interrupt. It is designed to offer maximum accuracy and efficient management,
> > +  even for systems with long response times.
> > 
> > +description:
> > +  Atmel periodic interval timer provides the operating system’s scheduler
> > +  interrupt. It is designed to offer maximum accuracy and efficient management,
> > +  even for systems with long response time.
> > 
> > Those seemed like they do the same thing to me!
> 
> They do the same thing, they are timers... But the way they do it (from
> hardware perspective) is totally different. With this would you still
> prefer to have them merged?

Yeah, one binding would be my preference.