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

Nicolas Ferre
2026-01-02T16:03:52Z

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@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

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.

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

Regards,
Nicolas