[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:07:28 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To: Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pwm: fix nodename pattern
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:16 AM Benjamin GAIGNARD
<benjamin.gaignard@...com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/11/19 8:52 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:00 AM Benjamin Gaignard
> > <benjamin.gaignard@...com> wrote:
> >> Typical pwm nodes should be named pwm@....
> >> The pattern shouldn't match nodes named pwm-xxx to avoid
> >> conflicts with pinmux or pwm-fan nodes.
> > It only matches pwm-$(a-hex-number), not any string, so that shouldn't
> > be a problem. This is needed for things like GPIO based devices (not
> > just PWMs) which don't have any address.
> >
> > Pinmux nodes are going to need to adopt some sort of standard pattern
> > we can match on.
> I have push a patch to stop using '@' and '_' in pinmux groups names:
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1162591/
> It remove the warnings when compiling the devicetre with W=12 but pwm.yaml
> complain because pwm pinmux is named pwm-1.
>
> How can I solve these issues at the same time ?
Name the nodes *-pins or *-pins-[0-9]. You're probably going to need
some pattern anyways when you do a pinmux schema.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists