From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Add PWM polarity flag macro for DT Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:29:13 +0200 Message-ID: <10033310.z2U2FSCElN@avalon> References: <1374101664-21112-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <51E81E1C.20708@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51E81E1C.20708@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren , Thierry Reding Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Boris BREZILLON , Shawn Guo , Steffen Trumtrar , Tomasz Figa List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Stephen, On Thursday 18 July 2013 10:55:56 Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/17/2013 04:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Here's a small patch set that replaces PWM polarity numerical constants > > with macros in DT. > > The series, > Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren > > I'm (very very) slightly hesitant about patch 3/4, since it's moving towards > all PWMs having to use the same specifier format, whereas specifiers are at > least potentially binding-specific, not device-type-specific. However, > consistency is good; there's no need to do something different just for the > heck of it. Equally, there's nothing actually stopping a new binding from > defining its own format rather than simply deferring to pwm.txt if it > absolutely has to, so I think this will turn out fine. Exactly, that's why I don't think it's an issue. pwm.txt defines a common format, individual bindings are free to use it or not. Thierry, if you're fine with the patches, could you take them in your tree with Stephen's Reviewed-by, or should I report them and send you a pull request ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart