linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] dt-bindings: timer: microchip,sam9x60-pit64b: convert to yaml

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:17:07 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
        conor+dt@...nel.org, conor@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        wim@...ux-watchdog.org, sebastian.reichel@...labora.com,
        linux@...ck-us.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] dt-bindings: timer: microchip,sam9x60-pit64b:
 convert to yaml

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 08:55:39AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 06:41:39AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
> > On 26.05.2023 09:23, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 04:47:28AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.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.

I'd probably just leave them separate if they're pretty much unrelated.

Rob