[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231122-jokester-reapply-eb000d976d56@spud>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:36:32 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: William Qiu <william.qiu@...rfivetech.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Hal Feng <hal.feng@...rfivetech.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: Add OpenCores PWM module
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 03:03:36PM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/11/14 4:17, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:07:15PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 13/11/2023 10:42, William Qiu wrote:
> >> > Will update.
> >> >>> +
> >> >>> +allOf:
> >> >>> + - $ref: pwm.yaml#
> >> >>> +
> >> >>> +properties:
> >> >>> + compatible:
> >> >>> + oneOf:
> >> >>> + - items:
> >> >>> + - enum:
> >> >>> + - starfive,jh7100-pwm
> >> >>> + - starfive,jh7110-pwm
> >> >>> + - const: opencores,pwm
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a very, very generic compatible. Are you sure, 100% sure, that
> >> >> all designs from OpenCores from now till next 100 years will be 100%
> >> >> compatible?
> >> >>
> >> > My description is not accurate enough, this is OpenCores PTC IP, and PWM
> >> > is one of those modes, so it might be better to replace compatible with
> >> > "opencores, ptc-pwm"
> >> >
> >> > What do you think?
> >>
> >> Sorry, maybe this answers maybe doesn't. What is "PTC"?
> >
> > "pwm timer counter". AFAIU, the IP can be configured to provide all 3.
> > I think that William pointed out on an earlier revision that they have
> > only implemented the pwm on their hardware.
> > I don't think putting in "ptc" is a sufficient differentiator though, as
> > clearly there could be several different versions of "ptc-pwm" that have
> > the same concern about "all designs from OpenCores for now till the next
> > 100 years" being compatible.
Perhaps noting what "ptc" stands for in the description field would be a
good idea.
> After discussion and review of materials, we plan to use "opencores,ptc-pwm-v1"
> as this version of compatible, so that it can also be compatible in the future.
>
> What do you think?
Do we know that it is actually "v1" of the IP? I would suggest using the
version that actually matches the version of the IP that you are using
in your SoC.
Thanks,
Conor.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists