From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2995B5BC; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="eu8lf+UQ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4854DC433C8; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:36:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1700674598; bh=Vza99+xtq+1wLQeh3rk7M9wfNhph6mzwpTZ+i29+N5k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eu8lf+UQ8lxS78Mxw93tY9qK+MnxSy1BtNRiLd8+eS9R31GqQxBBks3Gzx0pFkbcy doqzjlz/x1XXXLbJmai3iZKJbx29szV2aJidObn4mHv49HHst47H0JReAaH6mCB3/r JpLXyIbeatYpCd1+ek6uZhbMXrvRsthb8ZkzRs/M1yte6Hutyh31Y6P7yoRPFYOzcL cM+/FVpaTqjjN3KLj3qqKS9JVO6MYw8fYDkXu3wJ2OBnXh2bg6nkmF8N4inruHZZvP BQQBaC+DUmDBc1t8nQ+inJZWemDM64XSFPhpM/klRR5Sq1o/wvzVEHJsepeXc6UJia aVkW3mkMMwNew== Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:36:32 +0000 From: Conor Dooley To: William Qiu Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Emil Renner Berthing , Rob Herring , Thierry Reding , Philipp Zabel , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Hal Feng , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: Add OpenCores PWM module Message-ID: <20231122-jokester-reapply-eb000d976d56@spud> References: <20231110062039.103339-1-william.qiu@starfivetech.com> <20231110062039.103339-2-william.qiu@starfivetech.com> <824cee7b-e4d3-461a-8bfb-4ad095c240fd@linaro.org> <20231113-sprung-tantrum-94659009b9d4@squawk> <1ba3e8d1-ed89-4aab-ae27-d8d31ee2f150@starfivetech.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9e0gDyQKikb1dEdb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1ba3e8d1-ed89-4aab-ae27-d8d31ee2f150@starfivetech.com> --9e0gDyQKikb1dEdb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 03:03:36PM +0800, William Qiu wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 2023/11/14 4:17, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:07:15PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 13/11/2023 10:42, William Qiu wrote: > >> > Will update. > >> >>> + > >> >>> +allOf: > >> >>> + - $ref: pwm.yaml# > >> >>> + > >> >>> +properties: > >> >>> + compatible: > >> >>> + oneOf: > >> >>> + - items: > >> >>> + - enum: > >> >>> + - starfive,jh7100-pwm > >> >>> + - starfive,jh7110-pwm > >> >>> + - const: opencores,pwm > >> >> > >> >> That's a very, very generic compatible. Are you sure, 100% sure, th= at > >> >> all designs from OpenCores from now till next 100 years will be 100% > >> >> compatible? > >> >> > >> > My description is not accurate enough, this is OpenCores PTC IP, and= PWM > >> > is one of those modes, so it might be better to replace compatible w= ith > >> > "opencores, ptc-pwm" > >> >=20 > >> > What do you think? > >>=20 > >> Sorry, maybe this answers maybe doesn't. What is "PTC"? > >=20 > > "pwm timer counter". AFAIU, the IP can be configured to provide all 3. > > I think that William pointed out on an earlier revision that they have > > only implemented the pwm on their hardware. > > I don't think putting in "ptc" is a sufficient differentiator though, as > > clearly there could be several different versions of "ptc-pwm" that have > > the same concern about "all designs from OpenCores for now till the next > > 100 years" being compatible. Perhaps noting what "ptc" stands for in the description field would be a good idea. > After discussion and review of materials, we plan to use "opencores,ptc-p= wm-v1" > as this version of compatible, so that it can also be compatible in the f= uture. >=20 > What do you think? Do we know that it is actually "v1" of the IP? I would suggest using the version that actually matches the version of the IP that you are using in your SoC. Thanks, Conor. --9e0gDyQKikb1dEdb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZV48IAAKCRB4tDGHoIJi 0nnhAP0dO+HuU6VJxyhYQTYCOgtFy1M7siCtU/9xX8hHaon4MgEA3d9vorRE+CH8 uSLzgEykIwm2UD5v+hkW0uBeHJrQ8wk= =AWCX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9e0gDyQKikb1dEdb--