From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Branden Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: pwm: kona: Add new compatible for new version pwm-kona Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:28:45 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1547184076-20521-1-git-send-email-sheetal.tigadoli@broadcom.com> <1547184076-20521-2-git-send-email-sheetal.tigadoli@broadcom.com> <20190111204801.2ytdeblcai7lg3on@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190111204801.2ytdeblcai7lg3on@pengutronix.de> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=c3=b6nig?= , Sheetal Tigadoli Cc: Thierry Reding , Rob Herring , Florian Fainelli , Ray Jui , Scott Branden , bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Praveen Kumar B List-Id: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org Hi Uwe 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 >> >> Add new compatible string for new version of pwm-kona >> >> Signed-off-by: Praveen Kumar B >> Reviewed-by: Ray Jui >> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden >> Signed-off-by: Sheetal Tigadoli >> --- >> 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. > > Best regards > Uwe >