[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170531142614.5f32fca6@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 14:26:14 +0200
From: Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhauser@...il.com>
To: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>,
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] gpio: mvebu: Add limited PWM support
On Tue, 30 May 2017 17:35:33 +0200
Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
>
> I have the functional spec (no NDA needed, but it's not the full
> one) : A38x-Functional-Spec-PU0A.pdf
> https://marvellcorp.wufoo.com/forms/marvell-armada-38x-functional-specifications/
> (just an email needed, no blood signing nor chicken slaughtering)
> There are the GPIO Blink Counter A/B is ON/OFF Duration Registers as
> well as the Blink Enable Registers.
>
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the link, as the terms only talk about materials obtained
from www.marvell.com this one from wufoo.com should be exempt ;)
Also at a glance looks like the complete one. Also says "Functional
Specifications – Unrestricted". Maybe you want to re-download it.
Regardless, as you said the blinking registers are all described. So
it's probably safe to assume 39x will have them as well.
> I've done a pwm with different periods (8ms, 4ms, 100ns).
> Looking at the scope, it seems to work pretty well :)
>
> >>
> >> And it makes me realized that I missed the bad naming of the
> >> compatible string. We don't use family name for the compatible
> >> string, but the name of the first SoC compatible with. So in this
> >> case we should use "marvell,armada-370", as it is still in rc and
> >> not yet deployed. What about fixing the name now?
Gregory,
Knowing it's not limited to 370/XP makes "marvell,armada-370-gpio" an
obviously better choice for the compatible string. Guess you didn't
mean to drop the "-gpio" suffix.
Will work on a patch changing the compatible string / documentation for
4.12 and an updated patch for armada 370/XP dtsi as well as a patch
adding the properties to 38x for 4.13+. Expect them tomorrow, probably
won't get around to it today anymore.
Ralph
Powered by blists - more mailing lists