On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 11:02:12AM +0300, Александр Шубин wrote: > чт, 15 июн. 2023 г. в 19:37, Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:43:56PM +0300, Aleksandr Shubin wrote: > > > Allwinner's D1, T113-S3 and R329 SoCs have a new pwm > > > controller witch is different from the previous pwm-sun4i. > > > > > > D1 and T113s SoCs have one PWM controller with 8 channels. > > > R329 SoC has two PWM controllers in both power domains, one of > > > them has 9 channels (CPUX one) and the other has 6 (CPUS one). > > > > It would be good to note that the D1 and T113 are identical in terms of > > peripherals, they differ only in the architecture of the CPU core, and > > even share the majority of their DT. Because of that, using the same > > compatible makes sense. > > The R329 is a different SoC though, and should have a different > > compatible string added, especially as there is a difference in the > > number of channels. It would be fine to use the current compatible for > > the D1 as a fallback. > > The allwinner,pwm-channels property should probably only be allowed on > > the R329 and only allow the values of 6 & 9. > > > Maybe would it be better to allow only 8 channels for D1 and only 6 and 9 > channels for R329? If you're on a D1, you don't need a dt property to tell you the number of channels, you already know it to be 8. Couple ways driver could implement that, for example: if the dt-binding requires the property on the R329, you could set 8 as the default and overwrite it if the property exists - which would only be permitted on the R329. Up to you.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
