On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Claudiu Beznea <Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 20.01.2018 00:34, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 04:22:57PM +0200, Claudiu Beznea wrote: >>> Define a macros for PWM modes to be used by device tree sources. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h b/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h >>> index ab9a077e3c7d..b8617431f8ec 100644 >>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h >>> @@ -12,4 +12,7 @@ >>> >>> #define PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED (1 << 0) >>> >>> +#define PWM_DTMODE_NORMAL (1 << 0) >> >> Bit 0 is already taken. I think you mean (0 << 1)? > I wanted to have the PWM modes in a new cell, so that the pwms binding to be > something like: > pwms=<pwm-controller pwm-channel pwm-period pwm-flags pwm-mode> > > If you think it is mode feasible to also include PWM mode in the cell for > PWM flags, please let me know. Yes, but you have to make "normal" be no bit set to be compatible with everything already out there. >> Personally, I'd just drop this define. A define for a 0 value makes more >> sense when each state is equally used (like active high or low), but if >> 0 is the more common case, then I don't the need for a define. > I want it to have these defines like bit defines: > PWM_DTMODE_NORMAL=0x1 > PWM_DTMODE_COMPLEMENTARY=0x2 > PWM_DTMODE_PUSH_PULL=0x4 Thinking about this some more, shouldn't the new modes just be implied? A client is going to require one of these modes or it won't work right. Also complementary mode could be accomplished with a single pwm output and a board level inverter, right? How would that be handled when the PWM driver doesn't support that mode? Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
