| Message ID | cover.1738842938.git.u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | pwm: pxa: Use #pwm-cells = <3> | expand |
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:06:24PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > this series' goal is to soften the special device-tree binding of > marvel,pxa-pwm devices. This is the only binding that doesn't pass the > line index as first parameter. > > Here the #pwm-cells value is bumped from 1 to 3, keeping compatibility > with the old binding. > > The motivation for this was that Hervé sent a patch introducing pwm > nexus nodes which don't work nicely with the marvel,pxa-pwm > particularities. > > Changes since (implicit) v1, available at > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/cover.1738777221.git.u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com: > > - Use #pwm-cells = <3> also in the binding example (*sigh*), pointed > out by Rob > - Add review, ack and test tags by Hervé Codina, Conor Dooley, Duje > Mihanović and Daniel Mack. Thanks! > > I intend to take the first patch via my pwm tree. Assuming the pxa and > device tree maintainers and bots are happy now: Dear pxa maintainers, > please tell if I should take the whole series via pwm, or if you want to > take patches #2 and #3. If the latter: Do you want to delay application > or should I provide an immutable branch for patch #1? I applied patch #1 to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ukleinek/linux.git pwm/for-next now. I don't know yet what should happen to the two other patches, but maybe it's a good idea to wait a bit anyhow to have 3 cells working for the pxa driver for a kernel release or two before we switch it. Best regards Uwe
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:06:24PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello, > > > > this series' goal is to soften the special device-tree binding of > > marvel,pxa-pwm devices. This is the only binding that doesn't pass the > > line index as first parameter. > > > > Here the #pwm-cells value is bumped from 1 to 3, keeping compatibility > > with the old binding. > > > > The motivation for this was that Hervé sent a patch introducing pwm > > nexus nodes which don't work nicely with the marvel,pxa-pwm > > particularities. > > > > Changes since (implicit) v1, available at > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/cover.1738777221.git.u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com: > > > > - Use #pwm-cells = <3> also in the binding example (*sigh*), pointed > > out by Rob > > - Add review, ack and test tags by Hervé Codina, Conor Dooley, Duje > > Mihanović and Daniel Mack. Thanks! > > > > I intend to take the first patch via my pwm tree. Assuming the pxa and > > device tree maintainers and bots are happy now: Dear pxa maintainers, > > please tell if I should take the whole series via pwm, or if you want to > > take patches #2 and #3. If the latter: Do you want to delay application > > or should I provide an immutable branch for patch #1? > > I applied patch #1 to > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ukleinek/linux.git pwm/for-next > now. > > I don't know yet what should happen to the two other patches, but maybe > it's a good idea to wait a bit anyhow to have 3 cells working for the > pxa driver for a kernel release or two before we switch it. The dts change will never work with a kernel without patch 1. You can somewhat mitigate that by backporting patch 1 to stable. If users aren't doing stable updates, they might not be doing dtb updates either... Rob
Hello, this series' goal is to soften the special device-tree binding of marvel,pxa-pwm devices. This is the only binding that doesn't pass the line index as first parameter. Here the #pwm-cells value is bumped from 1 to 3, keeping compatibility with the old binding. The motivation for this was that Hervé sent a patch introducing pwm nexus nodes which don't work nicely with the marvel,pxa-pwm particularities. Changes since (implicit) v1, available at https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/cover.1738777221.git.u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com: - Use #pwm-cells = <3> also in the binding example (*sigh*), pointed out by Rob - Add review, ack and test tags by Hervé Codina, Conor Dooley, Duje Mihanović and Daniel Mack. Thanks! I intend to take the first patch via my pwm tree. Assuming the pxa and device tree maintainers and bots are happy now: Dear pxa maintainers, please tell if I should take the whole series via pwm, or if you want to take patches #2 and #3. If the latter: Do you want to delay application or should I provide an immutable branch for patch #1? Best regards Uwe Uwe Kleine-König (3): pwm: Add upgrade path to #pwm-cells = <3> for users of of_pwm_single_xlate() dt-bindings: pwm: marvell,pxa-pwm: Update to use #pwm-cells = <3> ARM: dts: pxa: Use #pwm-cells = <3> for marvell,pxa-pwm devices .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/marvell,pxa-pwm.yaml | 5 ++--- arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/pxa/pxa25x.dtsi | 4 ++-- arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/pxa/pxa27x.dtsi | 8 ++++---- .../dts/intel/pxa/pxa300-raumfeld-controller.dts | 2 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/pxa/pxa3xx.dtsi | 8 ++++---- drivers/pwm/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) base-commit: 2014c95afecee3e76ca4a56956a936e23283f05b