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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Sat, 29 Jan 2022 11:12:22 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
To:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Biwen Li <biwen.li@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "arm64: dts: ls1028a: add flextimer based pwm
 nodes"
In-Reply-To: <20220129054209.GO4686@dragon>
References: <20220115210907.451189-1-michael@walle.cc>
 <20220115210907.451189-2-michael@walle.cc> <20220129054209.GO4686@dragon>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.12
Message-ID: <3d1328729d93daa2e6a50a4d03ec5ef0@walle.cc>
Precedence: bulk

Am 2022-01-29 06:42, schrieb Shawn Guo:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 10:09:07PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
>> The changes to the device tree look very wrong. There are now two
>> devices with the same base address: pwm0 and ftm_alarm0. Both are 
>> using
>> the Flex Timer Module. It seems like this should either be one driver 
>> or
>> and MFD driver. Either way, there should only be one node in the 
>> device
>> tree. Revert the offending changes to avoid getting a broken device 
>> tree
>> in circulation.
> 
> Why not just fix the conflicting nodes?

And how would you fix it? There are two conflicting drivers. Like
I said, maybe it should be an MFD driver, see for example
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-flexcom.txt, which also
have a common block which you can switch between different modes. But
that would mean a lot of work which I don't think will happen until
the next merge window, let alone that this is not a bugfix.

Therefore, the only sensible thing is to revert the latest changes,
so that you don't have a broken device tree released with 5.17 and
work on a proper support for the next release.

And TBH, I'd expect that NXP will fix this.

-michael