Quoting Brian Masney (2020-01-07 04:03:17)
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 12:35:33AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Brian Masney (2019-12-04 16:25:00)
> > > +examples:
> > > + - |
> > > + #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,mmcc-msm8974.h>
> > > + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> > > +
> > > + vibrator {
> > > + compatible = "clk-vibrator";
> > > +
> > > + vcc-supply = <&pm8941_l19>;
> > > +
> > > + clocks = <&mmcc CAMSS_GP1_CLK>;
> > > + clock-names = "core";
> > > + clock-frequency = <24000>;
> > > +
> > > + enable-gpios = <&msmgpio 60 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > > +
> > > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > > + pinctrl-0 = <&vibrator_pin>;
> >
> > I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. I think we can have a pwm
> > provider in a clk controller node (so imagine &mmcc has #pwm-cells) and
> > then this 'clk-vibrator' binding wouldn't exist? Instead we would have
> > some sort of binding for a device that expects a pwm and whatever else
> > is required, like the enable gpio and power supply. Is there an actual
> > hardware block that is this way? Does it have a real product id and is
> > made by some company? Right now this looks a little too generic to not
> > just be a catch-all for something that buzzes.
>
> So have some of the Qualcomm clocks like this one register with both the
> clk and the pwm frameworks? I feel that approach would better represent
> the hardware in device tree.
That is one option. Or another option would be to have another node that
"adapts" a clk signal to a pwm provider. Similar to how we adapt a gpio
to make a clk gate or mux. Something like:
gcc: clock-controller@f00d {
reg = <0xf00d 0xd00d>;
#clock-cells = <1>;
};
pwm {
compatible = "pwm-clk";
#pwm-cells = <0>;
clocks = <&gcc 45>;
assigned-clocks = <&gcc 45>;
assigned-clock-rates = <1400000>;
};
And then the pwm-clk driver would adjust the duty cycle to generate a
pwm.
>
> If we did that, then the pwm-vibra driver in the input subsystem could
> be used.
