On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 10:53 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Ryder,
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:42:54PM +0800, Ryder Lee wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 08:59 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:24:41AM +0800, Ryder Lee wrote:
> > > > This adds a property "mediatek,num-pwms" to avoid having an endless
> > > > list of compatibles with no differences for the same driver.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, the driver should have backwards compatibility to older DTs.
> > >
> > > I still think Thierry should bless "num-pwms" without vendor prefix.
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes since v1: add some checks for backwards compatibility.
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c
> > > > index eb6674c..81b7e5e 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c
> > > > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ enum {
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > struct mtk_pwm_platform_data {
> > >
> > > Unrelated to this patch: This name is bad. This struct is not used as
> > > platform_data and so should better be named mtk_pwm_of_data. While at
> > > criticizing existing stuff: I'd prefer pwm_mediatek as common prefix to
> > > match the filename.
> >
> > I think we can take care about that in another patch.
>
> That's what I wanted to say, right. Do you follow up?
Yes, I will do that.
> > > > - unsigned int num_pwms;
> > > > + unsigned int num_pwms; /* it should not be used in the future SoCs */
> > >
> > > I'd drop this comment in favour of a runtime warning.
> >
> > Sorry, I can't get you here.
>
> I'd do a
>
> dev_warn(dev, "dt didn't specify number of PWMs, falling back to %d\n", pc->soc->num_pwms);
>
> to make people aware that updating the dt would be nice.
Okay!
Thanks
Ryder
