Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-33648-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:02:40 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Dharma.B@microchip.com
Cc: robh@kernel.org, Linux4Microchip@microchip.com,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com,
	Conor.Dooley@microchip.com, thierry.reding@gmail.com,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev,
	airlied@gmail.com, lee@kernel.org, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	tzimmermann@suse.de, mripard@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bbrezillon@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, daniel@ffwll.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Convert Microchip's HLCDC Text based DT bindings
 to JSON schema
Message-ID: <20240122160240.GA511247@ravnborg.org>
References: <20240118092612.117491-1-dharma.b@microchip.com>
 <20240118193040.GA223383@ravnborg.org>
 <20240119195151.GB938671-robh@kernel.org>
 <20240120132356.GA345206@ravnborg.org>
 <6c6e4ddc-b3df-484e-961f-6efbd52defd6@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6c6e4ddc-b3df-484e-961f-6efbd52defd6@microchip.com>

Hi Dharma
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 03:52:17AM +0000, Dharma.B@microchip.com wrote:
> On 20/01/24 6:53 pm, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > [You don't often get email from sam@ravnborg.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > 
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > Hi Sam & Rob,
> > Hi Dharma & Rob.
> > 
> >>> To make the DT binding backward compatible you likely need to add a few
> >>> compatible that otherwise would have been left out - but that should do
> >>> the trick.
> >>>
> >>> The current atmel hlcdc driver that is split in three is IMO an
> >>> over-engineering, and the driver could benefit merging it all in one.
> >>> And the binding should not prevent this.
> >>
> >> I agree on all this, but a conversion is not really the time to redesign
> >> things. Trust me, I've wanted to on lots of conversions. It should be
> >> possible to simplify the driver side while keeping the DT as-is. Just
> >> make the display driver bind to the MFD node instead. After that, then
> >> one could look at flattening everything to 1 node.
> > 
> > Understood and thinking a bit about it fully agreed as well.
> > Dharma - please see my comments only as ideas for the future, and
> > ignore them in this fine rewrite you do.
> > 
> >          Sam
> Based on your insights, I'm contemplating the decision to merge Patch 2 
> [PWM binding] with Patch 3[MFD binding]. It seems redundant given that 
> we already have a PWM node example in the MFD binding.
> 
> Instead of introducing a new PWM binding,
>    pwm:
>      $ref: /schemas/pwm/atmel,hlcdc-pwm.yaml
> 
> I will update the existing MFD binding as follows:
> 
> properties:
>    compatible:
>      const: atmel,hlcdc-pwm
> 
>    "#pwm-cells":
>      const: 3
> 
> required:
>    - compatible
>    - "#pwm-cells"
> 
Good idea, this looks like a nice simplification.

	Sam