Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210412132745.76609-1-clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>
 <20210412132745.76609-4-clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com> <YHmXPyf+XjgJs3C8@orome.fritz.box>
In-Reply-To: <YHmXPyf+XjgJs3C8@orome.fritz.box>
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:39:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ3MU+iCr+R784r7UkPEsmDUgsgL-Qvi7edKnpe3T8M5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] dt-bindings: pwm: Support new PWM_USAGE_POWER flag
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc:     Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>,
        Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:54 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > Add the flag and corresponding documentation for PWM_USAGE_POWER.
> >
> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt | 3 +++
> >  include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h                 | 1 +
> >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> Rob, what are your thoughts on this? I've been thinking about this some
> more and I'm having second thoughts about putting this into device tree
> because it doesn't actually describe a property of the PWM hardware but
> rather a use-case specific hint. It's a bit of a gray area because this
> is just part of the PWM specifier which already has use-case specific
> "configuration", such as the period and the polarity.

I'm pretty neutral. My main hesitation from what I've followed is
'power' seems a bit indirect. A PWM signal doesn't have a 'power' any
more than a GPIO signal does.

> Perhaps a better place for this is within the PWM API? We could add the
> same information into struct pwm_state and then consumers that don't
> care about specifics of the signal (such as pwm-backlight) can set that
> flag when they request a state to be applied.

Yeah, seems like this is fairly well tied to the class of consumer.

Rob