Re: [PATCH 3/5] dt-bindings: timer: microchip,sam9x60-pit64b: convert to yaml

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

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@microchip.com wrote:
> > On 26.05.2023 09:23, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 04:47:28AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.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