From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Masney Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: dts: qcom: msm8974-hammerhead: add device tree bindings for vibrator Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:54:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20190625005434.GA6401@onstation.org> References: <20190516085018.2207-1-masneyb@onstation.org> <20190520142149.D56DA214AE@mail.kernel.org> <20190529101231.GA14540@basecamp> <20190623105332.GA25506@onstation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Stephen Boyd , "thierry.reding@gmail.com" , Andy Gross , David Brown , Bjorn Andersson , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , MSM , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:29:29AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:53 PM Brian Masney wrote: > > > 2) Do what Linus suggests above. We can use v1 of this series from last > > September (see below for link) that adds this to the pwm subsystem. > > The locking would need to be added so that it won't conflict with the > > clk subsystem. This can be tied into the input subsystem with the > > existing pwm-vibra driver. > > What I imagined was that the clk driver would double as a pwm driver. > Just register both interfaces. > > There are already plenty of combines clk+reset drivers for example. > > Otherwise I'm all for this approach (but that's just me). I agree that this makes sense. I especially like that it'll allow us to use the existing pwm-vibra driver in the input subsystem with this approach. Brian