Re: [PATCH 1/4] ARM: rockchip: rk3288: Switch to use the proper PWM IP

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Donnerstag, 21. August 2014, 08:24:22 schrieb Thierry Reding:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 08:55:09AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > > Looking at the register offsets in the device tree that seems likely. At
> > > least PWMs 0 and 1 as well as 2 and 3 seem like they could be in the
> > > 
> > > same IP block. Their placement in the register map is somewhat strange:
> > >         pwm0: pwm@20030000 {
> > >         
> > >                 ...
> > >                 reg = <0x20030000 0x10>;
> > >                 ...
> > >                 clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM01>;
> > >                 ...
> > >         
> > >         };
> > >         
> > >         pwm1: pwm@20030010 {
> > >         
> > >                 ...
> > >                 reg = <0x20030010 0x10>;
> > >                 ...
> > >                 clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM01>;
> > >                 ...
> > >         
> > >         };
> > >         
> > >         ...
> > >         
> > >         pwm2: pwm@20050020 {
> > >         
> > >                 ...
> > >                 reg = <0x20050020 0x10>;
> > >                 ...
> > >                 clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM23>;
> > >                 ...
> > >         
> > >         };
> > >         
> > >         pwm3: pwm@20050030 {
> > >         
> > >                 ...
> > >                 reg = <0x20050030 0x10>;
> > >                 ...
> > >                 clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM23>;
> > >                 ...
> > >         
> > >         };
> > 
> > Ah, you're looking at "rk3xxx.dtsi".  That doesn't apply to rk3288
> > (the downsides of trying to guess ahead of time what SoC vendors will
> > name new models).
> > 
> > In rk3288 they have the same clocks.  See patch #3 in this series.
> > 
> > > The clocks would also indicate that there are actually two blocks. I
> > > seem to remember a discussion about whether to handle them as a single
> > > block or two/four, but I can't seem to find a reference to it. Maybe I'm
> > > confusing it with another driver.
> > 
> > At this point it seems like the choice has already been made to handle
> > them as separate PWMs.  I can change this choice if you want...
> 
> Well, looking at patch 3/4 this really does seem to be one single block
> providing four PWM channels, so the right thing to do would be to
> represent it in one device tree node. But I'll leave it up to Heiko to
> decide how he wants to handle this.
> 
> One downside of describing it as one device is that it would make the
> pinmux handling slightly more difficult, since presumably you'd only
> want to apply the pinmux settings when a channel is actually being used.
> Currently the pinmux doesn't apply as long as the device remains
> disabled in device tree (though enabling it doesn't necessarily mean
> that it's being used).

yeah, the pinctrl settings would need to move to the board files, to only set 
the pins necessary on the relevant board. But I don't see that as a problem.


> Like I said, it's up to Heiko to decide whether it's worth making this
> change (and it'd make sense to apply it to existing DTS files
> retroactively) or better to keep what we have.

hmm, I guess I don't really have a hard opinion on this. Generally I like the 
"right thing" approach, but the current option also looks ok to me.
So I guess I'm not much help in deciding this :-)


Heiko

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.