Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: Add OpenCores PWM module

[Conor Dooley]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 03:38:41PM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023/11/23 1:36, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 03:03:36PM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 2023/11/14 4:17, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:07:15PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> >> On 13/11/2023 10:42, William Qiu wrote:
> >> >> > Will update.
> >> >> >>> +
> >> >> >>> +allOf:
> >> >> >>> +  - $ref: pwm.yaml#
> >> >> >>> +
> >> >> >>> +properties:
> >> >> >>> +  compatible:
> >> >> >>> +    oneOf:
> >> >> >>> +      - items:
> >> >> >>> +          - enum:
> >> >> >>> +              - starfive,jh7100-pwm
> >> >> >>> +              - starfive,jh7110-pwm
> >> >> >>> +          - const: opencores,pwm
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's a very, very generic compatible. Are you sure, 100% sure, that
> >> >> >> all designs from OpenCores from now till next 100 years will be 100%
> >> >> >> compatible?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > My description is not accurate enough, this is OpenCores PTC IP, and PWM
> >> >> > is one of those modes, so it might be better to replace compatible with
> >> >> > "opencores, ptc-pwm"
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > What do you think?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Sorry, maybe this answers maybe doesn't. What is "PTC"?
> >> > 
> >> > "pwm timer counter". AFAIU, the IP can be configured to provide all 3.
> >> > I think that William pointed out on an earlier revision that they have
> >> > only implemented the pwm on their hardware.
> >> > I don't think putting in "ptc" is a sufficient differentiator though, as
> >> > clearly there could be several different versions of "ptc-pwm" that have
> >> > the same concern about "all designs from OpenCores for now till the next
> >> > 100 years" being compatible.
> > 
> > Perhaps noting what "ptc" stands for in the description field would be a
> > good idea.
> > 
> I will add.
> >> After discussion and review of materials, we plan to use "opencores,ptc-pwm-v1"
> >> as this version of compatible, so that it can also be compatible in the future.
> >> 
> >> What do you think?
> > 
> > Do we know that it is actually "v1" of the IP? I would suggest using the
> > version that actually matches the version of the IP that you are using
> > in your SoC.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Conor.
> 
> There is no version list on their official website, so it is not certain whether
> it is v1, but at least the driver is the first version.
> 
> What do you think is the best way?

I don't have an account, so I cannot open the "ptc_spec.pdf at this link:
https://opencores.org/projects/ptc/downloads
but I would take whatever documentation you have for the spec and see
what it says as the revision on the front cover.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature