Hello Hervé, On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 06:19:30PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 17:29:30 +0100 > Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 02:37:37PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 12:38:32 +0100 > > > Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Could I adapt the mapping that the effect is > > > > > > > > pwms = <&soc_pwm2 57000 0> > > > > > > In this one, I think you miss the PWM number > > > > > > If I read correctly this line you ask for the PWM 57000 from the soc_pwm2 > > > controller. This doesn't make sense :) > > > > Some pwm chip devices with only a single output line use this. The first > > paramter is the default period (which is passed in the 2nd parameter > > normally) and the 2nd paramter are flags (normally the 3rd parameter). > > Back then the rationale was that for such hardware, the line index is > > zero always anyhow, and so could better be skipped. > > > > Compare of_pwm_xlate_with_flags() to of_pwm_single_xlate(). pwm-pxa is > > the single offender using the latter. Thinking about that, it's easy > > enough to fix without breaking compatibility. I'll tackle that. > > > > So for a PWM on pxa `<&soc_pwm2 57000 0>` works fine. > > I see. In this case, a parameter shift during translation would be needed to > skip the PWM line index in the translated arguments. This is not currently > neither described in device-tree specicication [0] nor handled in the common > code of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() in the kernel. OK, that's what I expected. > This use case can appear for resources other than PWMs and IMHO it should be > nice to have it supported. > > I think this support should proposed out of this series adding support for > PWM nexus nodes. > > Is it blocking for this current series ? Not from my side. If I get an Ack from the dt guys, I'll merge it. Thanks Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
