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

Claudiu Beznea
2026-01-08T09:17:29Z

Hi, Nicolas,

On 1/2/26 18:03, 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.
>
> Claudiu, tell me if I need to help with this?

Unfortunately, I don't have the bandwidth to look at this in the next
weeks. Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Claudiu