mbox series

[0/2] pwm: brcmstb: Support configurable open-drain mode

Message ID 20241012025603.1644451-1-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series pwm: brcmstb: Support configurable open-drain mode | expand

Message

Florian Fainelli Oct. 12, 2024, 2:56 a.m. UTC 
This patch series updates the pwm-brcmstb driver to not assume an
open-drain mode, but instead get that sort of configuration from Device
Tree using the 'open-drain' property.

Florian Fainelli (2):
  dt-bindings: pwm: brcm,bcm7038: Document the 'open-drain' property
  pwm: brcmstb: Do not assume open drain configuration

 .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/brcm,bcm7038-pwm.yaml          | 6 ++++++
 drivers/pwm/pwm-brcmstb.c                                  | 7 +++++--
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Uwe Kleine-König Oct. 14, 2024, 8:05 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hello Florian,

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 07:56:01PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> This patch series updates the pwm-brcmstb driver to not assume an
> open-drain mode, but instead get that sort of configuration from Device
> Tree using the 'open-drain' property.

Just for me to be sure to understand correctly: A kernel without your
patch #2 behaves identical to a kernel with that patch if the open-drain
property is present, right?

It's not clear to me why totem-pole is the better default and the commit
logs don't justify the updated default. Can you improve here?

Best regards
Uwe
Krzysztof Kozlowski Oct. 16, 2024, 7:09 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:05:40PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Florian,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 07:56:01PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > This patch series updates the pwm-brcmstb driver to not assume an
> > open-drain mode, but instead get that sort of configuration from Device
> > Tree using the 'open-drain' property.
> 
> Just for me to be sure to understand correctly: A kernel without your
> patch #2 behaves identical to a kernel with that patch if the open-drain
> property is present, right?

I don't think it does. Patch #2 breaks the ABI, IMO.

> 
> It's not clear to me why totem-pole is the better default and the commit
> logs don't justify the updated default. Can you improve here?
> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof