Il 09/05/24 12:30, Frank Wunderlich ha scritto:
Am 9. Mai 2024 12:10:59 MESZ schrieb AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Il 08/05/24 20:25, Frank Wunderlich ha scritto:
Hi
Gesendet: Dienstag, 07. Mai 2024 um 15:35 Uhr
Von: "AngeloGioacchino Del Regno" <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Il 06/05/24 18:00, Frank Wunderlich ha scritto:
+ fan: pwm-fan {
+ compatible = "pwm-fan";
+ #cooling-cells = <2>;
+ /* cooling level (0, 1, 2) - pwm inverted */
+ cooling-levels = <255 96 0>;
Did you try to actually invert the PWM?
Look for PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED ;-)
Mtk pwm driver does not support it
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c#L211
You're right, sorry - I confused the general purpose PWM controller with the
rather specific DISP_PWM controller (which does support polarity inversion).
It's good - but I'd appreciate if you can please add a comment stating that
the PWM values are inverted in SW because the controller does *not* support
polarity inversion... so that next time someone looks at this will immediately
understand what's going on and why :-)
so i would change comment like this:
/* cooling level (0, 1, 2)
* signal is inverted on board
* mtk pwm driver does not support
* PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED */
There you go:
/*
* The signal is inverted on this board and the general purpose
* PWM HW IP in this SoC does not support polarity inversion.
*/
/* Cooling level < 0 1 2> */
cooling-levels = <255 96 0>;
Thanks for clearing structure of the comment,but imho actually it is a driver issue (for all mtk SoC). Not sure it is really a hardware limitation. So i would change this to "... and the PWM driver does not support polarity inversion."
+ pwms = <&pwm 0 10000>;
+ status = "okay";
+ };
+
+ phy14: ethernet-phy@14 {
...
+ interrupts-extended = <&pio 48 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
+ reset-gpios = <&pio 49 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
+ reset-assert-us = <10000>;
+ reset-deassert-us = <20000>;
+ phy-mode = "2500base-x";
+ full-duplex;
+ pause;
+ airoha,pnswap-rx;
+
+ leds {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
+ led@0 { /* en8811_a_gpio5 */
+ reg = <0>;
+ color = <LED_COLOR_ID_YELLOW>;
+ function = LED_FUNCTION_LAN;
+ function-enumerator = <1>;
Why aren't you simply using a label?
You mean the comment? I can add it of course like for regulators.
I mean in place of the function-enumerator... that's practically used to
distinguish between instances, it's not too common to see it, and usually
"label" replaces exactly that - just that, instead of a different number,
it gets a different name with no (usually) meaningless numbers :-)
as far as i understand using label also makes "function" property useless, after discussing
this with eric i would drop both on all 4 places by labels like these:
label = "yellow-lan";
label = "green-lan";
...
not sure if we should drop color property too...
I'm looking at the leds binding (leds/common.yaml) right now.
My suggestion of using 'label' was actually wrong - and your devicetree was
actually right!!! (apart from the default-trigger that may not work)
Infact, the documentation says, in brief:
- function-enumerator is ignored if label is present
- function doesn't say that gets ignored
- color doesn't say that gets ignored
- label says:
- If not present -> get string from node name
- function-enumerator ignored
- This property is deprecated
...but the 'label' binding does not say 'deprecated: true', which is something
that must be fixed!
Ok,i can try to add the property to binding (independ of this series). Imho label was cleaner than function and function-enumerator...
Oh I sort of agree with you, I liked the label more, as it's more consistent with
everything else... but oh well. :-)
So, I'm sorry for the confusion, the noise and the useless loss of time around
this - you can keep the LED nodes as they are, and that's a lesson for the future
me reviewing another node like this one.
Don't worry, we are all humas...i missed looking in linux-next for the other binding-patches.
P.S.: This shouldn't have been a RFC, as the patches are more than RFC quality!!!
I sent it as RFC because i had not expected to be merged before next is closed.
Ah at least from my side, no worries... when I see RFC I generally expect to see
"dubious/head-scratching stuff", not "sub-optimal timing to send a patch" :-P
Cheers!
Angelo
+ default-state = "keep";
+ linux,default-trigger = "netdev";
+ };
+ led@1 { /* en8811_a_gpio4 */
+ reg = <1>;
+ color = <LED_COLOR_ID_GREEN>;
+ function = LED_FUNCTION_LAN;
+ function-enumerator = <2>;
+ default-state = "keep";
+ linux,default-trigger = "netdev";
+ };
+ };
+ };
+
+ phy15: ethernet-phy@15 {
+ reg = <15>;
regards Frank
