On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 08:55:39AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 06:41:39AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On 26.05.2023 09:23, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 04:47:28AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> On 25.05.2023 20:14, Conor Dooley wrote: > > >>>> Convert Microchip PIT64B to YAML. Along with it clock-names binding has > > >>>> been added as the driver needs it to get PIT64B clocks. > > >>> I don't think both of these PIT things need to have different binding > > >>> files. 90% of it is the same, just the clock-names/number - so you can > > >> > > >> But these are different hardware blocks with different functionalities and > > >> different drivers. > > > > > > Having different drivers doesn't preclude having them in the same > > > binding provided the function/description etc are more or less > > > identical. I was confused by: > > > > > > +description: > > > + The 64-bit periodic interval timer provides the operating system scheduler > > > + interrupt. It is designed to offer maximum accuracy and efficient management, > > > + even for systems with long response times. > > > > > > +description: > > > + Atmel periodic interval timer provides the operating system’s scheduler > > > + interrupt. It is designed to offer maximum accuracy and efficient management, > > > + even for systems with long response time. > > > > > > Those seemed like they do the same thing to me! > > > > They do the same thing, they are timers... But the way they do it (from > > hardware perspective) is totally different. With this would you still > > prefer to have them merged? > > Yeah, one binding would be my preference. I'd probably just leave them separate if they're pretty much unrelated. Rob
