Hi Oleksandr, Thank you for the patch. On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:32:27PM +0200, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote: > PWM can have a normal polarity and a reverted one. The reverted polarity > value is defined. As mentioned by Paul, I'd use "inverted" instead of "reverted". Your patch series is trying to standardized on "inverted", let's not add another term :-) I would squash this patch with 2/7, apart from that it looks fine. However, I also agree with Thierry that the PWM cell that contains this value is a bitmask, so once we get more flags it may get a bit awkward. Will we have one macro for each flag that will evaluate to 0 to report that the flag isn't set ? Or should we define a single PWM_FLAG_NONE (or similarly named) macro ? In retrospect, maybe PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED should have been named PWM_FLAG_POLARITY_INVERTED. > Define the PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL to be used further. > > Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Suvorov <oleksandr.suvorov@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h b/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h > index ab9a077e3c7d..6b58caa6385e 100644 > --- a/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ > #ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_PWM_PWM_H > #define _DT_BINDINGS_PWM_PWM_H > > +#define PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL 0 > #define PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED (1 << 0) > > #endif -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
