From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp15.bhosted.nl (smtp15.bhosted.nl [94.124.121.26]) (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 4027425D53E for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:09:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=94.124.121.26 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740737376; cv=none; b=J6vFq7460zpwnH1LVrQL6v89WV0ap30ajbHxbNrlvy3EWSr3OQ/4odhSZfrZ1EvfEd0L9tPBgseNjTnDib8fD7z5wzfh45t4Hqb3/zoxmA7seU6QVMLCVpMHOb8l+AUr7Qu9kQFMxKFPF8fjrqgew5XEt8/Js9bU70b5XwN1MI0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740737376; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2Vh6s5d9G9Yevb9V+NyS1g0ALh2v4cCTWYZX6WaWto4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=k+fosxqurHToAcci+47fmgLqTiUP8SfPMdgtCQ8f4Qz/WOKkzi/PG7o//TxxRGy7iMlMWrxlMWqQAQFtxj8F0/viGtNp0psB5D0s+GCa63tgHrVyOiLqynohWqyFTpg489wEjpmjt8V+bZ9vWySdDCGY0rhlHm7rKerMPI/BJ58= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=protonic.nl; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=protonic.nl; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonic.nl header.i=@protonic.nl header.b=YeCNdxiR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=94.124.121.26 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=protonic.nl Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=protonic.nl Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonic.nl header.i=@protonic.nl header.b="YeCNdxiR" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonic.nl; s=202111; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:mime-version:references:in-reply-to: message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from; bh=2UCCLlAhi2XVYL+PR3aixzJ9O8fv6heHVP14A0uBTPA=; b=YeCNdxiRy5kf91+7ZAevXRHsmE0G1s7W/8WQIXQ0tXmv9gQPDM0KdqXt708s323lS7IHoyvGmlPFN btMeXt/xpgy/enPD1Zc/hj9XGH7tzMeQqPeGQpvn7YcUEG8EaS5p1ST0GGnyHUCR+WLHncO0Q3ksuP C5GVJ5etu082SCbKmYVBdIDH0FrQU2GFwT09o5wsu3cX1ynGbGJ42i8bEV4opHZdn0hZmqU10JWRZd U0l1TchgqICKjuvNaZekVtWN7Jx1iyA6tL4KGVdN1FHSIJ47a+PNaQro5d2XKzDtAhkcQErCmRf0H6 9FrjyNyzGqk1XvOrgFpP/ynUvR3o6Rg== X-MSG-ID: 1a633c63-f5bc-11ef-a39b-00505681446f Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:09:31 +0100 From: David Jander To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Nuno Sa , Jonathan Cameron , Oleksij Rempel , Uwe =?UTF-8?B?S2xlaW5lLUvDtm5pZw==?= , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/7] dt-bindings: motion: Add motion-simple-pwm bindings Message-ID: <20250228110931.7bdae7fd@erd003.prtnl> In-Reply-To: <9a1d75a2-66c0-46b6-91a1-4922b892dfb1@kernel.org> References: <20250227162823.3585810-1-david@protonic.nl> <20250227162823.3585810-8-david@protonic.nl> <20250228-wonderful-python-of-resistance-d5b662@krzk-bin> <20250228102201.590b4be6@erd003.prtnl> <9a1d75a2-66c0-46b6-91a1-4922b892dfb1@kernel.org> Organization: Protonic Holland X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.48; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:37:48 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28/02/2025 10:22, David Jander wrote: > > > >>> + > >>> + motion,pwm-inverted: > >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag > >> > >> And PWM flag does not work? > > > > I have seen PWM controllers that don't seem to support the > > PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED flag and those where it just doesn't work. Should all > > > Shouldn't the controllers be fixed? Or let's rephrase the question: why > only this PWM consumer needs this property and none of others need it? CCing Uwe Kleine-Koenig and linux-pwm mailing list. I know that at least in kernel 6.11 the pwm-stm32.c PWM driver doesn't properly invert the PWM signal when specifying PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED. I agree this is a probably bug that needs fixing if still present in 6.14-rc. Besides that, if linux-pwm agrees that every single PWM driver _must_ properly support this flag, I will drop this consumer flag an start fixing broken PWM drivers that I encounter. I agree that it makes more sense this way, but I wanted to be sure. Best regards, -- David Jander