On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:06:24PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello, > > > > this series' goal is to soften the special device-tree binding of > > marvel,pxa-pwm devices. This is the only binding that doesn't pass the > > line index as first parameter. > > > > Here the #pwm-cells value is bumped from 1 to 3, keeping compatibility > > with the old binding. > > > > The motivation for this was that Hervé sent a patch introducing pwm > > nexus nodes which don't work nicely with the marvel,pxa-pwm > > particularities. > > > > Changes since (implicit) v1, available at > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/cover.1738777221.git.u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx: > > > > - Use #pwm-cells = <3> also in the binding example (*sigh*), pointed > > out by Rob > > - Add review, ack and test tags by Hervé Codina, Conor Dooley, Duje > > Mihanović and Daniel Mack. Thanks! > > > > I intend to take the first patch via my pwm tree. Assuming the pxa and > > device tree maintainers and bots are happy now: Dear pxa maintainers, > > please tell if I should take the whole series via pwm, or if you want to > > take patches #2 and #3. If the latter: Do you want to delay application > > or should I provide an immutable branch for patch #1? > > I applied patch #1 to > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ukleinek/linux.git pwm/for-next > now. > > I don't know yet what should happen to the two other patches, but maybe > it's a good idea to wait a bit anyhow to have 3 cells working for the > pxa driver for a kernel release or two before we switch it. The dts change will never work with a kernel without patch 1. You can somewhat mitigate that by backporting patch 1 to stable. If users aren't doing stable updates, they might not be doing dtb updates either... Rob
