Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pwm: kona: Add new compatible for new version pwm-kona

[Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>]

Hi Rob,

On 2019-01-21 3:11 p.m., Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 04:14:21PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> Hi Uwe,
>>
>> On 2019-01-12 7:05 a.m., Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Hello Scott,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 01:28:45PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>>>> On 2019-01-11 12:48 p.m., Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:51:14AM +0530, Sheetal Tigadoli wrote:
>>>>>> From: Praveen Kumar B <praveen.b@broadcom.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add new compatible string for new version of pwm-kona
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Praveen Kumar B <praveen.b@broadcom.com>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sheetal Tigadoli <sheetal.tigadoli@broadcom.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/brcm,kona-pwm.txt | 2 +-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/brcm,kona-pwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/brcm,kona-pwm.txt
>>>>>> index 8eae9fe..d37f697 100644
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/brcm,kona-pwm.txt
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/brcm,kona-pwm.txt
>>>>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Broadcom Kona PWM controller device tree bindings
>>>>>>     This controller has 6 channels.
>>>>>>     Required Properties :
>>>>>> -- compatible: should contain "brcm,kona-pwm"
>>>>>> +- compatible: should contain "brcm,kona-pwm" or "brcm,kona-pwm-v2"
>>>>> Is v2 used on a newer generation of kona SoCs? On i.MX these variants
>>>>> are usually named after the first SoC that came with the new variant. Is
>>>>> this sensible here, too?
>>>> It doesn't make as much sense here as different revs of the IP block are
>>>> picked up based on various decisions.
>>>>
>>>> A new SoC could decide to use an old version.
>>> IMHO this is no reason to not use the name of the oldest SoC with this
>>> variant. I don't know how the SoC names are in the broadcom family, but
>>> if they were (in order of age, oldest first):
>>>
>>> 	ant
>>> 	bear
>>> 	crocodile
>>>
>>> and ant and crocodile use the same IP block we would have
>>>
>>> a) with v1, v2:
>>>
>>> 	ant:
>>> 		compatible = "brcm,kona-pwm-v1";
>>> 	bear:
>>> 		compatible = "brcm,kona-pwm-v2";
>>> 	crocodile:
>>> 		compatible = "brcm,kona-pwm-v1";
> Version numbers can be fine, but generally only as fallbacks as even the
> same IP version can be integrated into an SoC differently.
>
> The other issue with versions is they should be meanful such as
> corresponding to version tags in IP repos. Often, I'd guess anything
> with a 'v1' is just what some s/w person made up. Of course, we only
> can really know that for opensource IP or programmable logic IP.
>
> If you do use versions, document what the versioning scheme is.
>
>>> ; and
>>>
>>> b) with the SoC naming:
>>>
>>> 	ant:
>>> 		compatible = "brcm,kona-ant-pwm";
>>> 	bear:
>>> 		compatible = "brcm,kona-bear-pwm";
>>> 	crocodile:
>>> 		compatible = "brcm,kona-crocodile-pwm", "brcm,kona-ant-pwm";
> This is the recommended practice.
>
>>> (If you want, drop "brcm,kona-crocodile-pwm", but keeping it is more
>>> defensive.)
> Generally, you should have "brcm,kona-crocodile-pwm" in case there's
> some difference found later. Then you can support the bug or feature
> without a DT change.

No DT change would be necessary in any case.

A check against the SOC type in the driver without additional DT 
compatibility strings could be done.

>
>>> I like b) (with "...-crocodile-...") better than a). crocodile using
>>> "...-ant-..." is not more ugly than crocodile using "...-v1". This is
>>> also a tad more robust because if broadcom releases kona-dolphin and
>>> someone finds a minor difference between the IPs used on ant and
>>> crocodile it depends on the order of these events who gets v3, while
>>> with the SoC naming the result is clear.
>>>
>>> (OK, and given that "brcm,kona-pwm" is already fixed, both approaches
>>> need slight adaption, but I guess you still get what I meant.)
>> Thanks for your thoughts and explanation.
>>
>> It is unfortunate devicetree has no proper guidelines or documentation on
>>
>> binding naming.  In the interest of getting this upstream we can name it
> Surely we've captured that somewhere...

Please point me at such documentation.

There is no consistency in kernel drivers from what I have seen.

>
>> "brcm, omega-pwm".  We can drop kona from the binding name as that
>> architecture
>>
>> is really no more - only IP derived from it is - hence the name kona-v2
>> previously.
>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>>
>> Cheers,
>> Scott