Hello, On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 05:33:25PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 16:49, Uwe Kleine-König > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:52:08PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > On 14/08/2019, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:25:53PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 15:01, Uwe Kleine-König > > > >> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:51:34AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > >> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:13, Uwe Kleine-König > > > >> > > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:46:40PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > >> > > > > +- assigned-clock-parents: The phandle of the parent clock of PWM > > > >> > > > > clock. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I'm not sure you need to point out assigned-clocks and > > > >> > > > assigned-clock-parents as this is general clk stuff. Also I wonder if > > > >> > > > these should be "required properties". > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I think I should describe any properties used by PWM node, like > > > >> > > 'clocks' and 'clock-names' properties, though they are common clock > > > >> > > properties. > > > >> > > > > >> > Then you might want to describe also "status", "assigned-clock-rates", > > > >> > "pinctrl-$n", "pinctrl-names", "power-domains", "power-domain-names" > > > >> > and > > > >> > probably another dozen I'm not aware of. > > > >> > > > >> We usually do not describe 'status', but if your device node used > > > >> "pinctrl-$n", "pinctrl-names" ... common properties, yes, you should > > > >> describe them to let users know what is the purpose of these > > > >> properties. That's also asked by DT maintainer Rob. > > > > > > > > Does this convince you that you should also describe "pinctrl-$n" and > > > > the others? If not, why not? We also usually don't describe > > > > > > Our PWM device node did not use "pinctrl-$n" things, why I should > > > describe "pinctrl-$n"? > > > > The binding you implemented supports "pinctrl-$n". And this is described > > somewhere in the generic pinctrl binding docs. The same applies to > > "assigned-clock-parents". > > > > That you happen to use assigned-clock-parents but not pinctrl-$n on the > > board you used to develop your driver is a detail that IMHO shouldn't > > decide about being listed in the binding doc for your PWM type. > > > > > If some devices use pinctrl, yes, they should describe what is the > > > purpose of pinctrl, see: > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-sprd.txt > > > > I agree that if the driver assumes special pinctrl names this is worth > > mentioning. If however there is nothing special and just some generic > > stuff is used that is described in some other location then I'd chose to > > not add this redundant information to the binding document. So if I > > reviewed the patch that created > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-sprd.txt I would have > > suggested to drop "assigned-clocks" and "assigned-clock-parents" there, > > too. > > > > > > assigned-clock-parents. For me these are all in the same catagory: > > > > > > Lots of dt bindings describe 'assigned-clock-parents',: > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,hdmi.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rockchip-pcie-host.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/mt2701-afe-pcm.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/brcm,cygnus-audio.txt > > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/brcm,cygnus-audio.txt > > > ...... > > > > I didn't check each of them, but I assume the same applies here, too. > > Please don't copy blindly but think before using other people's stuff as > > I did not copy blindly. OK, there was no offence intended. > > reference. Even in the Linux kernel where reviews seem and are told to > > catch non-optimal stuff, there are places where this doesn't work. IMHO > > the key question is: Does it add value to describe "assigned-clocks" in > > the binding for your PWM device given that you're only using this > > generic and well documented construct? > > I just want to remind users that they should set the parent clock for > PWMs, otherwise the PWM source clock can be not available. Probably it is just subjective where to draw the line here. There are a thousand and one things that can go wrong when the PWM should be used. To me it seems artificial to pick one of these and mention it in a document that is supposed to describe how to formalize such a device. But given that we're going in cycles, I will stop trying to convince you now. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
