Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] dt-bindings: pwm: amlogic: add new compatible for meson8 pwm type

[neil . armstrong]

Hi Jerome,

On 20/11/2023 10:18, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Mon 20 Nov 2023 at 09:27, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On 19/11/2023 17:05, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:59:12 +0100, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > > > Add a new compatible for the pwm found in the meson8 to sm1 Amlogic SoCs.
> > > >
> > > > The previous clock bindings for these SoCs described the driver and not the
> > > > HW itself. The clock provided was used to set the parent of the input clock
> > > > mux among the possible parents hard-coded in the driver.
> > > >
> > > > The new bindings allows to describe the actual clock inputs of the PWM in
> > > > DT, like most bindings do, instead of relying of hard-coded data.
> > > >
> > > > The new bindings make the old one deprecated.
> > > >
> > > > There is enough experience on this HW to know that the PWM is exactly the
> > > > same all the supported SoCs. There is no need for a per-SoC compatible.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml  | 36 +++++++++++++++++--
> > > >    1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I'm puzzled, isn't it recommended to have a per-soc compatible now ?
>
> I have specifically addressed this matter in the description,
> haven't I ? What good would it do in this case ?

Yes you did but I was asked for the last year+ that all new compatible
should be soc specific (while imprecise, in our care soc family should be ok),
with a possible semi-generic callback with an IP version or a first soc
implementing the IP.

> Plus the definition of a SoC is very vague. One could argue that
> the content of the list bellow are vaguely defined families. Should we
> add meson8b, gxl, gxm, sm1 ? ... or even the actual SoC reference ?
> This list gets huge for no reason.

I think in our case soc family is reasonable since they share same silicon
design.

> We know all existing PWM of this type are the same. We have been using
> them for years. It is not a new support we know nothing about.
>
> > I thought something like:
> > - items:
> >      - enum:
> >          - amlogic,gxbb-pwm
> >          - amlogic,axg-pwm
> >          - amlogic,g12a-pwm
> >      - const: amlogic,pwm-v1
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting here.
> Adding a "amlogic,pwm-v1" for the obsolete compatible ? No amlogic DT
> has that and I'm working to remove this type, so I don't get the point.
>
> > should be preferred instead of a single amlogic,meson8-pwm-v2 ?
>
> This is named after the first SoC supporting the type.
>
> Naming it amlogic,pwm-v2 would feel weird with the s4 coming after.
> Plus the doc specifically advise against this type of names.

The -v2 refers to a pure software/dt implementation versioning and not
an HW version, so I'm puzzled and I requires DT maintainers advice here.

Yes meson8b is the first "known" platform, even if I'm pretty sure meson6 has
the same pwm architecture, this is why "amlogic,pwm-v1" as fallback seems more
reasonable and s4 and later pwm could use the "amlogic,pwm-v2" fallback.

Neil
> > Neil