On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:46:49AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 09/10/2013 09:54 AM, Mike Dunn wrote: > > On 09/09/2013 02:19 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 09/09/2013 12:30 PM, Mike Dunn wrote: [...] > >>> +- reg: physical base address and length of the registers used by the pwm channel > >>> + NB: One device instance must be created for each pwm that is used, so the > >>> + length covers only the register window for one pwm output, not that of the > >>> + entire pwm controller. Currently length is 0x10 for all supported devices. > >>> +- #pwm-cells: should be 3. > >>> + cell 1: the per-chip index of the PWM to use, > >> > >> That cell shouldn't be needed if you really want to have one DT node per > >> PWM channel. > > > > Yes, but I was afraid to deviate from the format used by the other PWM > > controllers. (But in that case, it should at least be documented as "must be > > zero". Thanks.) If going my owm way is acceptable, I'll define my own > > of_xlate() parser and remove this cell. > > I don't think there's any issue with deviating; that's exactly what > #pwm-cells is for. Agreed, I have no objections to using a custom .of_xlate(). Thierry
Attachment:
pgpfcnF7VJYwV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
