[PATCH v3 5/5] ARM: dts: DRA7: Add dt nodes for PWMSS

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr. <fcooper at ti.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 03/02/2016 12:26 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:36:36PM -0600, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
>>> From: Vignesh R <vigneshr at ti.com>
>>>
>>> Add PWMSS device tree nodes for DRA7 SoC family and add documentation
>>> for dt bindings.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr at ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> Version 3 changes:
>>> None
>>>
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt       |  8 +++
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tipwmss.txt        | 17 +++++-
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi                        | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
>>> index 9c100b2..25d91ae 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.txt
>>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ Required properties:
>>>  - compatible: Must be "ti,<soc>-ehrpwm".
>>>    for am33xx - compatible = "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
>>>    for da850  - compatible = "ti,da850-ehrpwm", "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
>>> +  for dra7xx - compatible = "ti,dra7xx-ehrpwm", "ti,am33xx-ehrpwm";
>> We're starting to push back on wildcards in compatible strings. I guess
>> this is okay...
>>
>>>  - #pwm-cells: should be 3. See pwm.txt in this directory for a description of
>>>    the cells format. The only third cell flag supported by this binding is
>>>    PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED.
>>> @@ -27,3 +28,10 @@ ehrpwm0: ehrpwm at 0 { /* EHRPWM on da850 */
>>>      #pwm-cells = <3>;
>>>      reg = <0x300000 0x2000>;
>>>  };
>>> +
>>> +ehrpwm0: ehrpwm at 0 { /* EHRPWM on dra7xx */
>> Should be pwm at 48440200
>
> So the AM335x, AM437x  and DA850 all use ehrpwm0:
> ehrpwm@<address>. Also the address of 0 simply follows the
> pattern used in the other binding examples in that doc. I
> can replace the 0 address in this patch and make another
> patch that fixes it for the other examples in that file. But
> in terms of switching from ehrpwm0:ehrpwm@<address> to
> ehrpwm0:pwm@<address> that would also require making changes
> to the various dtsis also. So is it worth making that
> change? If so I have no problem doing it.

Follow-up patches to fix are fine. Unit-address and reg mismatches are
going to start warning in dtc soon.

Rob