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:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:20:47 +0100
From:   Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc:     Oleksandr Suvorov <oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Barker <pbarker@konsulko.com>,
        Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>,
        Igor Opaniuk <igor.opaniuk@toradex.com>,
        Philippe Schenker <philippe.schenker@toradex.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: pwm: add normal PWM polarity flag
Message-ID: <20200318092047.25gjkx43jwfyywsl@pengutronix.de>
References: <20200317123231.2843297-1-oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com>
 <20200317123231.2843297-4-oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com>
 <20200317225656.GK2527@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200317225656.GK2527@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Laurent,

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:56:56AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:32:27PM +0200, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
> > PWM can have a normal polarity and a reverted one. The reverted polarity
> > value is defined.
> 
> I would squash this patch with 2/7, apart from that it looks fine.
> However, I also agree with Thierry that the PWM cell that contains this
> value is a bitmask, so once we get more flags it may get a bit awkward.

For me the usefulness of PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL increases with more bits
used. That's because if there are 5 things that can be set there and the
patch author mentions only the two that are non-zero, I as a reviewer
don't know if the author actually know and thought about the other
three. If however they spell out PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL it's quite sure
they want normal polarity.

> Will we have one macro for each flag that will evaluate to 0 to report
> that the flag isn't set ?

Yes. Given the above mentioned advantage this is cheap enough in my
eyes.

> Or should we define a single PWM_FLAG_NONE (or
> similarly named) macro ?

I like one macro for each bit field better for the above mentioned
reason.

> In retrospect, maybe PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED
> should have been named PWM_FLAG_POLARITY_INVERTED.

Seems to be subjective. I don't see much added semantic that justifies
the longer name.

Best regards
Uwe

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