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

Message-ID: <20260102-everyone-deflector-8a1fc23f80e0@spud>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:26:10 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
	Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] dt-bindings: timer: microchip,sam9x60-pit64b:
 convert to yaml

On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 05:03:24PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 08/06/2023 at 22:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> > 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
> 
> I'd love to see this (old) thread revived and I'm ready to help.
> In particular this pit64b or WDT pending conversion to yaml which generate
> some errors while running dtbs_check on recent Microchip board .dts.
> 
> I tend to think like Claudiu and Rob here, hardware are so different from so
> different era, that... well... I would keep them separated for the sake of
> simplicity and future proof.

Yeah, that's fine by me.

> 
> Claudiu, tell me if I need to help with this?
> 
> Regards,
>   Nicolas

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)