Hello,
I really like this mechanism. Assuming the dt guys are happy yet, I
intend to merge it. Just some detail question below.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 10:55:43AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> Nexus node support in PWM allows the following description:
> soc {
> soc_pwm1: pwm-controller1 {
> #pwm-cells = <3>;
> };
>
> soc_pwm2: pwm-controller2 {
> #pwm-cells = <3>;
> };
> };
>
> connector: connector {
> #pwm-cells = <3>;
> pwm-map = <0 0 0 &soc_pwm1 1 0 0>,
> <1 0 0 &soc_pwm2 4 0 0>,
> <2 0 0 &soc_pwm1 3 0 0>;
> pwm-map-mask = <0xffffffff 0x0 0x0>;
> pwm-map-pass-thru = <0x0 0xffffffff 0xffffffff>;
> };
>
> expansion_device {
> pwms = <&connector 1 57000 0>;
> };
Does this also work if &soc_pwm2 has #pwm-cells = <2>? Would I need just
pwm-map = <0 0 0 &soc_pwm1 1 0 0>,
<1 0 0 &soc_pwm2 4 0>,
<2 0 0 &soc_pwm1 3 0 0>;
then and
pwms = <&connector 1 57000 0>;
would then have the same effect as
pwms = <&soc_pwm2 4 57000>
and the 0 is dropped then? Could I adapt the mapping that the effect is
pwms = <&soc_pwm2 57000 0>
instead?
This smells a bit ugly and I wonder if this gives a motivation to extend
the binding for PWMs that use #pwm-cells = <2> (or less) to also accept
the default 3-cell binding.
Best regards
Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
