[PATCH 1/1] dt-bindings: pwm: rockchip: Add description for rk3588

[Thierry Reding]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 01:48:29PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 04:16:01PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:12:02AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > Hello Rob,
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 02:14:55PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 01 Sep 2022 15:55:23 +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > > > > > Add "rockchip,rk3588-pwm" compatible string for PWM nodes found
> > > > > > on a rk3588 platform.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel at collabora.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > No driver changes required.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.yaml | 1 +
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the
> > > > > following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is
> > > > > incorrect. These may not be new warnings.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check.
> > > > > This will change in the future.
> > > > 
> > > > Is this a list of *new* warnings, or is the report (somewhat) orthogonal
> > > > to the actual change and you just used the opportunity that someone
> > > > touched the pwm-rockchip binding to point out that there is some cleanup
> > > > to do?
> > > > 
> > > > > Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/
> > > > 
> > > > Hm, that gives me a 404.
> > > 
> > > This is an existing problem with the rv1108 binding.
> > > The rk3588 does not have pwm interrupts.
> > 
> > Can somebody go and fix that, then?
> 
> I assume this will be taken care of with the rk3128 patchset, since
> that is affected anyways:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/f5dd0ee4-d97e-d878-ffde-c06e9b233e38@gmail.com/

That patch is already acked and I've pulled it in, so better make it a
separate patch.

The point I was trying to make is that somebody needs to fix this,
otherwise the automated checks are not going to be useful. So saying
things like "this is an existing problem and the new compatible is not
affected" is not helpful.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-rockchip/attachments/20220928/7a60026c/attachment-0001.sig>