[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240517-recognize-broaden-43ba03c9f78c@spud>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 18:39:16 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
"jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
"robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
"krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
"conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: Document adt7475 PWM initial
duty cycle
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 06:02:33PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On that point. How would I explain in the bindings that cell 2 is the
> > > duty cycle, cell 3 is the frequency and cell 4 is the flags?
> >
> > In the pwm-cells property in the pwm provider binding . You might want to
> > order it as <index freq flags duty> as usually that's the ordering done
> > in most (all?) pwm provider bindings that I have seen.
> > The pwm bindings I think are really unhelpful though - they all say "see
> > pwm.yaml for info on the cells in #pwm-cells, but then pwm.yaml has no
> > information. The information is actually in pwm.text, but the binding
> > conversion did s/pwm.text/pwm.yaml/ in pwm controller bindings.
> > I'll send a patch that fixes up pwm.yaml.
>
> Possibly cell 4 should be standardised as the period for all pwm
> providers and then all you'd have to do for your provider is set
> #pwm-cells:
> minItems: 4
`const: 4`, d'oh.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists