Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 08:53:21 +0100
From:   Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "thierry.reding@gmail.com" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, paul.burton@mips.com,
        James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>, ezequiel@collabora.co.uk,
        prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LINUXWATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>, od@zcrc.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 15/26] pwm: jz4740: Add support for the JZ4725B
Message-ID: <20181217075321.k45vhgnszeqs3tea@pengutronix.de>
References: <20181212220922.18759-1-paul@crapouillou.net>
 <20181212220922.18759-16-paul@crapouillou.net>
 <20181213092409.ml4wpnzow2nnszkd@pengutronix.de>
 <1544709795.18952.1@crapouillou.net>
 <20181213204219.onem3q6dcmakusl2@pengutronix.de>
 <CACRpkdbABtDgwKai=8Pfji7qVb-XHsX8pDsuDdS5hhg7qEN0Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181214142628.zwi4hadrju53z6f3@pengutronix.de>
 <1544969932.1649.1@crapouillou.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1544969932.1649.1@crapouillou.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Le ven. 14 d?c. 2018 ? 15:26, Uwe Kleine-K?nig
> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> a ?crit :
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 02:50:20PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 9:42 PM Uwe Kleine-K?nig
> > > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > > [Adding Linus Walleij to Cc:]
> > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:03:15PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > > > Le jeu. 13 d?c. 2018 ? 10:24, Uwe Kleine-K?nig
> > > > > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> a ?crit :
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > > > > >  The PWM in the JZ4725B works the same as in the JZ4740,
> > > > > > >  except that it only has 6 channels available instead of
> > > > > > >  8.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this driver is probed only from device tree? If yes, it
> > > > > > might be sensible to specify the number of PWMs there and
> > > > > > get it from there.
> > > > > > There doesn't seem to be a generic binding for that, but there are
> > > > > > several drivers that could benefit from it. (This is a bigger project
> > > > > > though and shouldn't stop your patch. Still more as it already got
> > > > > > Thierry's ack.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there needs to be a proper guideline, as there doesn't seem to be
> > > > > a consensus about this. I learned from emails with Rob and  Linus (Walleij)
> > > > > that I should not have in devicetree what I can deduce from the compatible
> > > > > string.
> > > >
> > > > I understood them a bit differently. It is ok to deduce things from the
> > > > compatible string. But if you define a generic property (say) "num-pwms"
> > > > that is used uniformly in most bindings this is ok, too. (And then the
> > > > two different devices could use the same compatible.)
> > > >
> > > > An upside of the generic "num-pwms" property is that the pwm core could
> > > > sanity check pwm phandles before passing them to the hardware drivers.
> > > 
> > >  I don't know if this helps, but in GPIO we have "ngpios" which is
> > >  used to augment an existing block as to the number of lines actually
> > >  used with it.
> > > 
> > >  The typical case is that an ASIC engineer synthesize a block for
> > >  32 GPIOs but only 12 of them are routed to external pads. So
> > >  we augment the behaviour of that driver to only use 12 of the
> > >  32 lines.
> > > 
> > >  I guess using the remaining 20 lines "works" in a sense but they
> > >  have no practical use and will just bias electrons in the silicon
> > >  for no use.
> > 
> > This looks very similar to the case under discussion.
> > 
> > >  So if the PWM case is something similar, then by all means add
> > >  num-pwms.
> > 
> > .. or "npwms" to use the same nomenclature as the gpio binding?
> 
> If we're going to do something like this, should it be the drivers or
> the core (within pwmchip_add) that checks for this "npwms" property?

Of course this should be done in the core. The driver than can rely on
the validity of the index. But as I wrote before, this shouldn't stop
your patch from going in.

But if Thierry agrees that this npmws (or num-pwms) is a good idea, it
would be great to start early to convert drivers.

Best regards
Uwe

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