Re: [PATCH 3/5] dt-bindings: timer: microchip,sam9x60-pit64b: convert to yaml

[Claudiu Beznea]

Hi, Nicolas,

On 1/2/26 18:03, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/06/2023 at 22:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 08:55:39AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 06:41:39AM +0000, 
> > > Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > On 26.05.2023 09:23, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 04:47:28AM +0000, 
> > > > > Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > On 25.05.2023 20:14, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > > > Convert Microchip PIT64B to YAML. Along with it clock-names 
> > > > > > > > binding has
> > > > > > > > been added as the driver needs it to get PIT64B clocks.
> > > > > > > I don't think both of these PIT things need to have different 
> > > > > > > binding
> > > > > > > files. 90% of it is the same, just the clock-names/number - so 
> > > > > > > you can
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But these are different hardware blocks with different 
> > > > > > functionalities and
> > > > > > different drivers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having different drivers doesn't preclude having them in the same
> > > > > binding provided the function/description etc are more or less
> > > > > identical. I was confused by:
> > > > >
> > > > > +description:
> > > > > +  The 64-bit periodic interval timer provides the operating system 
> > > > > scheduler
> > > > > +  interrupt. It is designed to offer maximum accuracy and 
> > > > > efficient management,
> > > > > +  even for systems with long response times.
> > > > >
> > > > > +description:
> > > > > +  Atmel periodic interval timer provides the operating system’s 
> > > > > scheduler
> > > > > +  interrupt. It is designed to offer maximum accuracy and 
> > > > > efficient management,
> > > > > +  even for systems with long response time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those seemed like they do the same thing to me!
> > > >
> > > > They do the same thing, they are timers... But the way they do it (from
> > > > hardware perspective) is totally different. With this would you still
> > > > prefer to have them merged?
> > >
> > > Yeah, one binding would be my preference.
> >
> > I'd probably just leave them separate if they're pretty much unrelated.
> >
> > Rob
>
> I'd love to see this (old) thread revived and I'm ready to help.
> In particular this pit64b or WDT pending conversion to yaml which 
> generate some errors while running dtbs_check on recent Microchip 
> board .dts.
>
> I tend to think like Claudiu and Rob here, hardware are so different 
> from so different era, that... well... I would keep them separated for 
> the sake of simplicity and future proof.
>
> Claudiu, tell me if I need to help with this?

Unfortunately, I don't have the bandwidth to look at this in the next 
weeks. Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Claudiu