On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:29:55AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:47:37 -0500 > Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:03:05AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > The current binding for the TCB is not flexible enough for some use cases > > > and prevents proper utilization of all the channels. > > > > > > Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org> > > > Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@gmail.com> > > > Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh...@kernel.org> > > > Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.txt | 32 ----------- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-tcb.txt | 62 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/atmel-tcb-pwm.txt | 12 +++-- > > > 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-tcb.txt > > > > [...]
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/atmel-tcb-pwm.txt > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/atmel-tcb-pwm.txt > > > index 8031148bcf85..ab8fbd5ba184 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/atmel-tcb-pwm.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/atmel-tcb-pwm.txt > > > @@ -2,15 +2,17 @@ Atmel TCB PWM controller > > > > > > Required properties: > > > - compatible: should be "atmel,tcb-pwm" > > > +- reg: tcb channel to use. Each channel can export 2 PWMs > > > > Is there a difference in channels? If not, then this compatible should > > go. > > This one I don't understand. > The TCB (Timer Counter Block) is an MFD containing 3 Timer Counter > devices. Each of these devices (also called channels) can be assigned a > specific mode: > - timer mode (free-running of programmable) > - waveform generator mode (IOW, a PWM) > - capture mode (an IIO device, but we don't have any driver for that > right now) > > So each sub-device of the TCB is represented as a sub-node with its own > compatible. Is there a problem with that? Missed this in my first reply. I guess for purposes of referencing pwm from other nodes this is okay. Rob
