Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] pwm: pxa: Use #pwm-cells = <3>

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:06:24PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > this series' goal is to soften the special device-tree binding of
> > marvel,pxa-pwm devices. This is the only binding that doesn't pass the
> > line index as first parameter.
> > 
> > Here the #pwm-cells value is bumped from 1 to 3, keeping compatibility
> > with the old binding.
> > 
> > The motivation for this was that Hervé sent a patch introducing pwm
> > nexus nodes which don't work nicely with the marvel,pxa-pwm
> > particularities.
> > 
> > Changes since (implicit) v1, available at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/cover.1738777221.git.u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com:
> > 
> >  - Use #pwm-cells = <3> also in the binding example (*sigh*), pointed
> >    out by Rob
> >  - Add review, ack and test tags by Hervé Codina, Conor Dooley, Duje
> >    Mihanović and Daniel Mack. Thanks!
> > 
> > I intend to take the first patch via my pwm tree. Assuming the pxa and
> > device tree maintainers and bots are happy now: Dear pxa maintainers,
> > please tell if I should take the whole series via pwm, or if you want to
> > take patches #2 and #3. If the latter: Do you want to delay application
> > or should I provide an immutable branch for patch #1?
> 
> I applied patch #1 to
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ukleinek/linux.git pwm/for-next
> now.
> 
> I don't know yet what should happen to the two other patches, but maybe
> it's a good idea to wait a bit anyhow to have 3 cells working for the
> pxa driver for a kernel release or two before we switch it.

The dts change will never work with a kernel without patch 1. You can 
somewhat mitigate that by backporting patch 1 to stable. If users aren't 
doing stable updates, they might not be doing dtb updates either...

Rob