On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:35:35AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:17:18AM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
Define bindings for pwm-stm32
version 2:
- use parameters instead of compatible of handle the hardware configuration
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard benjamin.gaignard@st.com
.../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..575b9fb --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +STMicroelectronics PWM driver bindings for STM32
Technically this bindings describe devices, so "driver binding" is a somewhat odd wording. Perhaps:
STMicroelectronics STM32 General Purpose Timer PWM bindings
?
+Must be a sub-node of STM32 general purpose timer driver +Parent node properties are describe in ../mfd/stm32-general-purpose-timer.txt
Again, "driver parent node" is odd. Perhaps:
Must be a sub-node of an STM32 General Purpose Timer device tree node. See ../mfd/stm32-general-purpose-timer.txt for details about the parent node.
?
+Required parameters: +- compatible: Must be "st,stm32-pwm" +- pinctrl-names: Set to "default". +- pinctrl-0: List of phandles pointing to pin configuration nodes
for PWM module.For Pinctrl properties, please refer to [1].Your indentation and capitalization are inconsistent. Also, please refer to the pinctrl bindings by relative path and inline, rather than as a footnote reference.
+Optional parameters: +- st,breakinput: Set if the hardware have break input capabilities +- st,breakinput-polarity: Set break input polarity. Default is 0
The value define the active polarity:- 0 (active LOW)- 1 (active HIGH)Could we fold these into a single property? If st,breakinput-polarity is not present it could simply mean that there is no break input, and if it is present you don't have to rely on a default.
+- st,pwm-num-chan: Number of available PWM channels. Default is 0.
The pwm- prefix is rather redundant since the node is already named pwm. Why not simply st,channels? Or simply channels, since it's not really anything specific to this hardware.
Come to think of it, might be worth having a discussion with our DT gurus about what their stance is on using the # as prefix for numbers (such as in #address-cells or #size-cells). This could be #channels to mark it more explicitly as representing a count.
Unfortunately that ship has sailed.
st,pwm-num-chan already exists (with your blessing). It's usually
I think I did at the time object, though very mildly. The property here is somewhat different, though. For one this is a PWM specific node, so the pwm- prefix is completely redundant. Also for pwm-sti where you had introduced st,pwm-num-chan, the property denoted how many PWM channels vs. capture channels (st,capture-num-chan) the device was supposed to use. Here there are only one type of channels.
suggested to reuse exiting properties when writing new bindings.
Given the above I think this case is different. Further my understanding is that the desire to reuse existing properties is primarily for generic properties. Vendor specific properties are always going to have to be defined in the specific bindings, so it doesn't matter very much whether they are reused or not.
Lastly, I think st,pwm-num-chan is not optimal, and while it isn't very bad either, I do believe that when we see ways of improving things then we should do so, regardless of whether existing ways to describe things already exist. Especially if it comes at no additional cost.
All of that said, this is my opinion and if everybody thinks that the st,pwm-num-chan is the better choice I'll merge it. Anyway, we'll need the Acked-by from one of the device tree bindings maintainers and I'd like to see at least an attempt at a discussion.
Thierry