On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:18:14AM +0200, Raphaël Gallais-Pou wrote: > Hi > > Le 02/08/2023 à 10:02, Uwe Kleine-König a écrit : > > Hello, > > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 12:05:59AM +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: > > > + st,capture-num-chan: > > > + $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32" > > > + description: Number of available Capture channels. > > > > I have the theory that nobody actually uses the capture feature and I'd > > like to get rid of it. People who do use it, should better switch to the > > counter driver. > > TBH I only found two drivers using it, including this one. > > $ grep -rinI "\.capture" drivers/pwm/ | wc -l > 2 Right, there is pwm-stm32 and pwm-sti that support capture. There are a few machines that have a st,sti-pwm device: $ grep -rl st,sti-pwm arch/arm/boot/dts/*.dtb arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-b2120.dtb arch/arm/boot/dts/stih410-b2120.dtb arch/arm/boot/dts/stih410-b2260.dtb arch/arm/boot/dts/stih418-b2199.dtb arch/arm/boot/dts/stih418-b2264.dtb but to actually use capture the device tree must have a property st,capture-num-chan. "st,capture-num-chan" isn't set by any of the devices. I think for stm32 it's not that trivial to show that it's unused. While the capture code isn't a big maintenance burden, I still would prefer to get rid of it if nobody uses it. Still more given that there are better alternatives available. > If there is no opposition about removing this feature I suggest to do it in > a second time, in a serie. Does that mean you will do that? I guess not, but at least this means you're not using capture support. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
