Re: [RFC PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: pwm: add normal PWM polarity flag

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Oleksandr,

Thank you for the patch.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:32:27PM +0200, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
> PWM can have a normal polarity and a reverted one. The reverted polarity
> value is defined.

As mentioned by Paul, I'd use "inverted" instead of "reverted". Your
patch series is trying to standardized on "inverted", let's not add
another term :-)

I would squash this patch with 2/7, apart from that it looks fine.
However, I also agree with Thierry that the PWM cell that contains this
value is a bitmask, so once we get more flags it may get a bit awkward.
Will we have one macro for each flag that will evaluate to 0 to report
that the flag isn't set ? Or should we define a single PWM_FLAG_NONE (or
similarly named) macro ? In retrospect, maybe PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED
should have been named PWM_FLAG_POLARITY_INVERTED.

> Define the PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL to be used further.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Suvorov <oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com>
> ---
> 
>  include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h b/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h
> index ab9a077e3c7d..6b58caa6385e 100644
> --- a/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>  #ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_PWM_PWM_H
>  #define _DT_BINDINGS_PWM_PWM_H
>  
> +#define PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL			0
>  #define PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED			(1 << 0)
>  
>  #endif

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart