From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pwm: Add PWM polarity flag macros for DT Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:20:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20130717182021.GA24079@dhcp-172-17-186-34.nvidia.com> References: <1373553468-6564-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <2883016.87pKJk9n0R@avalon> <51E4C073.4020407@wwwdotorg.org> <2989497.8E7gzkcamn@avalon> <51E6D037.3020706@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51E6D037.3020706@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Laurent Pinchart , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Philip Avinash , Grant Likely , Boris BREZILLON , Steffen Trumtrar , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:11:19AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/17/2013 05:00 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Monday 15 July 2013 21:39:31 Stephen Warren wrote: > ... > >> But then there's a problem where people assume that the common flags a= re > >> always available, and somewhere they aren't... Care is needed in the > >> choice of which common flags to define and/or how they're used. > >=20 > > Exactly. That's why I think listing the supported common flags in indiv= idual=20 > > bindings makes sense when some of the flags are not supported by all de= vices.=20 > > As the only PWM flags currently used are common to all PWM devices I ca= n leave=20 > > this out now. I have no strong preference, I'll follow your opinion on = this. >=20 > Yes, I guess separating the concept of defining common flags and which > devices use them is good. And then indeed individual devices need to > define which of the common flags they support. I'd still like to see the > *definition* of those common flags in some central place (i.e. pwm.txt > or a header that defines constants for it), and the other device > bindings simply reference that for the actual definitions. That sounds reasonable to me. Thierry --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR5uBlAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOh97QP/1xi4cp9qXADN5RzJzjIh0Qn rAtMQCp2NggBKz0p3yueGufLiS1izARSOb13uDJUWeFsikVyhGYng8i3ZRrlaoVA ktBoZf5CuSGmqKyURzIBEjc1nxAj4V9H0pKrpinj2XsDBKcVsmjjVHzQRu/tDnXk J5GKDgdl2wTwTHmg/9zrYVcuJsOuCPNm2YsGcAaR/7dL9fNHTgfhsrqTANXU+Y7Y M1IdG3etDvFrGlDTTnYXtYpDnr49VOuGL3KrFeYaFeQIVAKN+kDbGe2WR2F3O22E lDek6DW4hNRgLKdJIwSGIcEDw8AzcKpKHicn3DNvQQtnzzLJ4vNShJzIDfxlj0qg ptoOjnz1MB2dsyShOI0z8PvWdhseMndQ5wpXveeJjZ5Ck46USCl3NaysTtmZPYjd saabdM/E85g5HQZ79sggqg0st2P3l5TsEFFJ8Ie41ysf6kp8ofXYG8H/OiaAapKz hysfTGj6tgtY9jorIO3YdkZX59ALQikfFjawUzFQ4onYcXLymkyHUQI4i20k/wVo VQ1SIWbZ8aofbA5kqvdNH/ZSMl8uMgRLrUtd1EPx0scS6F1mf9GvQ/S6q0PKdQGM k0yxqk0YWkFtnzM/ccrpI5g29I6mnXiOUTlFSM3V12JAW4+kh6lF7V+m2tRWft3+ aCEjtkBeqFwvYE+oJezc =+FHU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ--