linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 7/7] dt-bindings: motion: Add motion-simple-pwm bindings

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

Message-ID: <20250228102201.590b4be6@erd003.prtnl>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:22:01 +0100
From: David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet
 <corbet@....net>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Nuno Sa
 <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Oleksij Rempel
 <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/7] dt-bindings: motion: Add motion-simple-pwm
 bindings


Dear Krzysztof,

Thanks for reviewing...

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:12:45 +0100
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 05:28:23PM +0100, David Jander wrote:
> [...]
> > +description: |  
> 
> Do not need '|' unless you need to preserve formatting.
> 
> > +   Simple motor control device based on 1 or 2 PWM outputs  
> 
> Your schema does not allow 1. Test it.

Ok, that came as a surprise to me. Thanks!

> > +
> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    enum:
> > +      - motion-simple-pwm
> > +
> > +  pwms:
> > +    maxItems: 2  
> 
> List and describe items instead.
> 
> > +
> > +  pwm-names:
> > +    maxItems: 2  
> 
> List items instead.

Will do in next iteration. Thanks.

> > +
> > +  motion,pwm-inverted:
> > +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag  
> 
> And PWM flag does not work?

I have seen PWM controllers that don't seem to support the
PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED flag and those where it just doesn't work. Should all
PWM controller drivers always support the PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED flag, even if
it needs to be inverted in software? If so, there are some drivers that need
fixing.

> Anyway, there is no "motion" company.

Got it. Dropped all the "motion," prefixes.

> > +    description:
> > +      If present, this flag indicates that the PWM signal should be inverted.
> > +      The duty-cycle will be scaled from 100% down to 0% instead 0% to 100%.
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - pwms
> > +
> > +allOf:
> > +  - $ref: /schemas/motion/common.yaml#
> > +
> > +unevaluatedProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    // This example shows how to use the TI DRV8873 or similar motor controllers
> > +    // with this driver
> > +    motion-simple-pwm0 {  
> 
> Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of
> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
> 
> e.g. motor {

Will change. Thanks.

Best regards,

-- 
David Jander