On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:21:30AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:54:26 +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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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). > > > > Add a device tree binding for them. > > > > Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Shubin <privatesub2@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../bindings/pwm/allwinner,sun20i-pwm.yaml | 86 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/allwinner,sun20i-pwm.yaml > > > > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check' > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13): > > yamllint warnings/errors: > > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > > > doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): > > See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20230810145443.1053387-2-privatesub2@xxxxxxxxx The bot was having an issue. This can be ignored. Rob
