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

Conor Dooley
2026-01-02T16:26:24Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2646 bytes --]

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@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.

Yeah, that's fine by me.

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]