[PATCH v3 3/7] PWM: add pwm-stm32 DT bindings

[Benjamin Gaignard]

2016-12-05 12:23 GMT+01:00 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 12:08:32PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>> 2016-12-05 7:53 GMT+01:00 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com>:
>> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:17:18AM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>> >> Define bindings for pwm-stm32
>> >>
>> >> version 2:
>> >> - use parameters instead of compatible of handle the hardware configuration
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard at st.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt          | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>> >>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt
>> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> index 0000000..575b9fb
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt
>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
>> >> +STMicroelectronics PWM driver bindings for STM32
>> >
>> > Technically this bindings describe devices, so "driver binding" is a
>> > somewhat odd wording. Perhaps:
>> >
>> >         STMicroelectronics STM32 General Purpose Timer PWM bindings
>> >
>> > ?
>>  done
>>
>> >
>> >> +
>> >> +Must be a sub-node of STM32 general purpose timer driver
>> >> +Parent node properties are describe in ../mfd/stm32-general-purpose-timer.txt
>> >
>> > Again, "driver parent node" is odd. Perhaps:
>> >
>> >         Must be a sub-node of an STM32 General Purpose Timer device tree
>> >         node. See ../mfd/stm32-general-purpose-timer.txt for details about
>> >         the parent node.
>> >
>> > ?
>>
>> done
>>
>> >
>> >> +Required parameters:
>> >> +- compatible:                Must be "st,stm32-pwm"
>> >> +- pinctrl-names:     Set to "default".
>> >> +- pinctrl-0:                 List of phandles pointing to pin configuration nodes
>> >> +                     for PWM module.
>> >> +                     For Pinctrl properties, please refer to [1].
>> >
>> > Your indentation and capitalization are inconsistent. Also, please refer
>> > to the pinctrl bindings by relative path and inline, rather than as a
>> > footnote reference.
>>
>> OK
>>
>> >
>> >> +
>> >> +Optional parameters:
>> >> +- st,breakinput:     Set if the hardware have break input capabilities
>> >> +- st,breakinput-polarity: Set break input polarity. Default is 0
>> >> +                      The value define the active polarity:
>> >> +                       - 0 (active LOW)
>> >> +                       - 1 (active HIGH)
>> >
>> > Could we fold these into a single property? If st,breakinput-polarity is
>> > not present it could simply mean that there is no break input, and if it
>> > is present you don't have to rely on a default.
>>
>> I need to know if I have to activate breakinput feature and on which level
>> I will rewrite it like that:
>> Optional parameters:
>> - st,breakinput-polarity-high: Set if break input polarity is active
>> on high level.
>> - st,breakinput-polarity-high: Set if break input polarity is active
>> on low level.
>
> How is that different from a single property:
>
>         Optional properties:
>         - st,breakinput-polarity: If present, a break input is available
>             for the channel. In that case the property value denotes the
>             polarity of the break input:
>             - 0: active low
>             - 1: active high
>
> ?

For break input feature I need two information: do I have to active it
and if activated
on which level.
I have two solutions:
- one parameter with a value (0 or 1) -> st,breakinput-polarity
- two parameters without value -> st,breakinput-active-high and
st,breakinput-active-low

By default break input feature is disabled

>
>> > The pwm- prefix is rather redundant since the node is already named pwm.
>> > Why not simply st,channels? Or simply channels, since it's not really
>> > anything specific to this hardware.
>> >
>> > Come to think of it, might be worth having a discussion with our DT
>> > gurus about what their stance is on using the # as prefix for numbers
>> > (such as in #address-cells or #size-cells). This could be #channels to
>> > mark it more explicitly as representing a count.
>> >
>> >> +- st,32bits-counter: Set if the hardware have a 32 bits counter
>> >> +- st,complementary:  Set if the hardware have complementary output channels
>> >
>> > "hardware has" and also maybe mention explicitly that this is a boolean
>> > property. Otherwise people might be left wondering what it should be set
>> > to. Or maybe word this differently to imply that it's boolean:
>> >
>> >         - st,32bits-counter: if present, the hardware has a 32 bit counter
>> >         - st,complementary: if present, the hardware has a complementary
>> >                             output channel
>>
>> I found a way to detect, at probe time, the number of channels, counter size,
>> break input capability and complementary channels so I will remove
>> "st,breakinput", "st,32bits-counter", "st,complementary" and "st,pwm-num-chan"
>> parameters
>
> Oh hey, that's very neat. I suppose in that case my comment above about
> the break input polarity is somewhat obsoleted. Still I think you won't
> need two properties. Instead you can follow what other similar
> properties have done: choose a default (often low-active) and have a
> single optional property to override the default (often high-active).
>
> In your case:
>
>         - st,breakinput-active-high: Some channels have a break input,
>             whose polarity will be active low by default. If this
>             property is present, the channel will be configured with an
>             active high polarity for the break input.
>
> Thierry



-- 
Benjamin Gaignard

Graphic Study Group

Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog