lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: pwm: sprd: Add Spreadtrum PWM documentation
Hello,

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 05:33:25PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 16:49, Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:52:08PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > On 14/08/2019, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:25:53PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 15:01, Uwe Kleine-König
> > > >> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:51:34AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > >> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:13, Uwe Kleine-König
> > > >> > > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:46:40PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > >> > > > > +- assigned-clock-parents: The phandle of the parent clock of PWM
> > > >> > > > > clock.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I'm not sure you need to point out assigned-clocks and
> > > >> > > > assigned-clock-parents as this is general clk stuff. Also I wonder if
> > > >> > > > these should be "required properties".
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think I should describe any properties used by PWM node, like
> > > >> > > 'clocks' and 'clock-names' properties, though they are common clock
> > > >> > > properties.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Then you might want to describe also "status", "assigned-clock-rates",
> > > >> > "pinctrl-$n", "pinctrl-names", "power-domains", "power-domain-names"
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > probably another dozen I'm not aware of.
> > > >>
> > > >> We usually do not describe 'status', but if your device node used
> > > >> "pinctrl-$n", "pinctrl-names" ... common properties, yes, you should
> > > >> describe them to let users know what is the purpose of these
> > > >> properties. That's also asked by DT maintainer Rob.
> > > >
> > > > Does this convince you that you should also describe "pinctrl-$n" and
> > > > the others? If not, why not? We also usually don't describe
> > >
> > > Our PWM device node did not use "pinctrl-$n" things, why I should
> > > describe "pinctrl-$n"?
> >
> > The binding you implemented supports "pinctrl-$n". And this is described
> > somewhere in the generic pinctrl binding docs. The same applies to
> > "assigned-clock-parents".
> >
> > That you happen to use assigned-clock-parents but not pinctrl-$n on the
> > board you used to develop your driver is a detail that IMHO shouldn't
> > decide about being listed in the binding doc for your PWM type.
> >
> > > If some devices use pinctrl, yes, they should describe what is the
> > > purpose of pinctrl, see:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-sprd.txt
> >
> > I agree that if the driver assumes special pinctrl names this is worth
> > mentioning. If however there is nothing special and just some generic
> > stuff is used that is described in some other location then I'd chose to
> > not add this redundant information to the binding document. So if I
> > reviewed the patch that created
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-sprd.txt I would have
> > suggested to drop "assigned-clocks" and "assigned-clock-parents" there,
> > too.
> >
> > > > assigned-clock-parents. For me these are all in the same catagory:
> > >
> > > Lots of dt bindings describe 'assigned-clock-parents',:
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,hdmi.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rockchip-pcie-host.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/mt2701-afe-pcm.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/brcm,cygnus-audio.txt
> > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/brcm,cygnus-audio.txt
> > > ......
> >
> > I didn't check each of them, but I assume the same applies here, too.
> > Please don't copy blindly but think before using other people's stuff as
>
> I did not copy blindly.

OK, there was no offence intended.

> > reference. Even in the Linux kernel where reviews seem and are told to
> > catch non-optimal stuff, there are places where this doesn't work. IMHO
> > the key question is: Does it add value to describe "assigned-clocks" in
> > the binding for your PWM device given that you're only using this
> > generic and well documented construct?
>
> I just want to remind users that they should set the parent clock for
> PWMs, otherwise the PWM source clock can be not available.

Probably it is just subjective where to draw the line here. There are a
thousand and one things that can go wrong when the PWM should be used.
To me it seems artificial to pick one of these and mention it in a
document that is supposed to describe how to formalize such a device.

But given that we're going in cycles, I will stop trying to convince you
now.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-14 11:47    [W:0.032 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site