On 20/01/24 6:53 pm, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > [You don't often get email from sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > Hi Sam & Rob, > Hi Dharma & Rob. > >>> To make the DT binding backward compatible you likely need to add a few >>> compatible that otherwise would have been left out - but that should do >>> the trick. >>> >>> The current atmel hlcdc driver that is split in three is IMO an >>> over-engineering, and the driver could benefit merging it all in one. >>> And the binding should not prevent this. >> >> I agree on all this, but a conversion is not really the time to redesign >> things. Trust me, I've wanted to on lots of conversions. It should be >> possible to simplify the driver side while keeping the DT as-is. Just >> make the display driver bind to the MFD node instead. After that, then >> one could look at flattening everything to 1 node. > > Understood and thinking a bit about it fully agreed as well. > Dharma - please see my comments only as ideas for the future, and > ignore them in this fine rewrite you do. > > Sam Based on your insights, I'm contemplating the decision to merge Patch 2 [PWM binding] with Patch 3[MFD binding]. It seems redundant given that we already have a PWM node example in the MFD binding. Instead of introducing a new PWM binding, pwm: $ref: /schemas/pwm/atmel,hlcdc-pwm.yaml I will update the existing MFD binding as follows: properties: compatible: const: atmel,hlcdc-pwm "#pwm-cells": const: 3 required: - compatible - "#pwm-cells" -- With Best Regards, Dharma B.
