Hi Dharma On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 03:52:17AM +0000, Dharma.B@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 20/01/24 6:53 pm, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > [You don't often get email from sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > Hi Sam & Rob, > > Hi Dharma & Rob. > > > >>> To make the DT binding backward compatible you likely need to add a few > >>> compatible that otherwise would have been left out - but that should do > >>> the trick. > >>> > >>> The current atmel hlcdc driver that is split in three is IMO an > >>> over-engineering, and the driver could benefit merging it all in one. > >>> And the binding should not prevent this. > >> > >> I agree on all this, but a conversion is not really the time to redesign > >> things. Trust me, I've wanted to on lots of conversions. It should be > >> possible to simplify the driver side while keeping the DT as-is. Just > >> make the display driver bind to the MFD node instead. After that, then > >> one could look at flattening everything to 1 node. > > > > Understood and thinking a bit about it fully agreed as well. > > Dharma - please see my comments only as ideas for the future, and > > ignore them in this fine rewrite you do. > > > > Sam > Based on your insights, I'm contemplating the decision to merge Patch 2 > [PWM binding] with Patch 3[MFD binding]. It seems redundant given that > we already have a PWM node example in the MFD binding. > > Instead of introducing a new PWM binding, > pwm: > $ref: /schemas/pwm/atmel,hlcdc-pwm.yaml > > I will update the existing MFD binding as follows: > > properties: > compatible: > const: atmel,hlcdc-pwm > > "#pwm-cells": > const: 3 > > required: > - compatible > - "#pwm-cells" > Good idea, this looks like a nice simplification. Sam
