On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 08:07:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:04 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:47:56PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:44:09AM +0530, shruthi.sanil@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > + The parent node represents the common general configuration details and > > > > + the child nodes represents the counter and timers. > > > > > > I don't think all the child nodes are necessary. Are the counters and > > > timers configurable (say on another SoC)? If not, then a single node > > > here would suffice. > > > > If you may notice the children may have different properties that can't be > > known ahead, such as IRQ line. On some platforms it may be this mapping, on > > another it maybe different. > > What I noticed is it's all the same clock and 1 interrupt for each > timer can be just a single 'interrupts' property with 8 entries. This may work. > Is there a platform that's different or that's a hypothetical? Because > hypothetically, every aspect of every IP could change. But we don't > try to parameterize everything in DT. It's a judgement call between > implying things from compatible and explicit DT properties. > > > With all respect for the simplification I think we can't do it here. > > You can. Any data in DT could be in the kernel. It's a question of > balance, not can or can't. Not only, it's also matters of what exactly hardware is: 8 timers or timer with 8 channels. If it's the former one, I prefer to have DT exactly like originally suggested, otherwise I will agree on your proposal. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
