On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:38:41PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > Some buzz around the patch made me notice this: > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2024 at 10:33 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + "#pwm-cells": > > + const: 3 > > I guess we should document these three cells: > - First cell must be 0 - just the one PWM on the one GPIO pin > - Second cell should be the default period that can be changed by software > - Third cell is polarity, 0 or PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED > > I guess this is 3 not 2 because the maintainers previously said they wanted > it like this? (I haven't read all old mail, nor do I remember...) > > The #pwm-cells are currently not properly specified in the bindings: for example > pwm-tiecap.yaml says "See pwm.yaml in this directory for a description > of the cells format." > and that file says nothing about the cells and what they are for, should > I send a separate patch for that? Does this suffice? https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/20240517-patient-stingily-30611f73e792@spud/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
