On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 09:02:33AM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> Am 30.01.19 um 21:35 schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:23:31PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> >> Hi Guenter,
> >>
> >>> Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> hat am 30. Januar 2019 um 18:28 geschrieben:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 04:07:05PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> >>>> This adds the tachometer interrupt to the pwm-fan binding, which is
> >>>> necessary for RPM support.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pwm-fan.txt | 3 +++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pwm-fan.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pwm-fan.txt
> >>>> index 49ca5d8..7f69b0b 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pwm-fan.txt
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pwm-fan.txt
> >>>> @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ Required properties:
> >>>>
> >>>> Optional properties:
> >>>> - fan-supply : phandle to the regulator that provides power to the fan
> >>>> +- interrupts : contains a single interrupt specifier which describes the
> >>>> + tachometer pin output of a 2 pulse-per-revolution fan.
> >>>> + See interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt for the format.
> >>> So a hypothetical {1,4} pulse-per-revolution fan would explicitly not be
> >>> supported ? Why ?
> >> i could add an additional property to specify the pulse per revolution and use the 2 as default (according to the Intel spec for 4 pin pwm fan) which should fit in most cases.
> >>
> > That would be a possibility and make sense, but that is not
> > the point here. The "interrupts" property does not and should
> > not care how many pulses per revolution the fan provides.
>
> sorry, i'm not sure what's the problem about. Do you want me to use a
> GPIO instead of interrupt?
>
> Or is it the wording here?
>
You wording limits the use of interrupts with pwm fans to fans with
2 pulses per revolution. You do not explain why that restriction would
be required or even make sense, or why it should be associated with
the 'interrupts' property.
Logically I assume that is because you expect an interrupt per pulse,
but that is not explained (or what the interrupt is expected to be
used for in the first place - it might, after all, be some kind of
error interrupt).
Guenter
