Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Aug 2023 19:19:38 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pwm: st: convert sti-pwm to DT schema | From | Raphaël Gallais-Pou <> |
| |
Hi,
Le 03/08/2023 à 18:09, Conor Dooley a écrit : > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 10:56:45AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:18:14AM +0200, Raphaël Gallais-Pou wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Le 02/08/2023 à 10:02, Uwe Kleine-König a écrit : >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 12:05:59AM +0200, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: >>>>> + st,capture-num-chan: >>>>> + $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32" >>>>> + description: Number of available Capture channels. >>>> >>>> I have the theory that nobody actually uses the capture feature and I'd >>>> like to get rid of it. People who do use it, should better switch to the >>>> counter driver. >>> >>> TBH I only found two drivers using it, including this one. >>> >>> $ grep -rinI "\.capture" drivers/pwm/ | wc -l >>> 2 >> >> Right, there is pwm-stm32 and pwm-sti that support capture. >> >> There are a few machines that have a st,sti-pwm device: >> >> $ grep -rl st,sti-pwm arch/arm/boot/dts/*.dtb >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-b2120.dtb >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stih410-b2120.dtb >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stih410-b2260.dtb >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stih418-b2199.dtb >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stih418-b2264.dtb >> >> but to actually use capture the device tree must have a property >> st,capture-num-chan. "st,capture-num-chan" isn't set by any of the >> devices.
This is also what I came across, this is the reason why I'm not reluctant to remove it.
>> >> I think for stm32 it's not that trivial to show that it's unused. >> While the capture code isn't a big maintenance burden, I still would >> prefer to get rid of it if nobody uses it. Still more given that there >> are better alternatives available.
Regarding stm32, I think the owner of the driver would prefer to handle it.
>> >>> If there is no opposition about removing this feature I suggest to do it in >>> a second time, in a serie. >> >> Does that mean you will do that? I guess not, but at least this means >> you're not using capture support. > > It seems like it should either be done as part of the conversion or as a > second patch in the series doing the conversion /shrug
Splitting the conversion and the capture removal is clearer IMO. Mixing both could lead to confusion. I'll send another serie to do this.
Regards, Raphaël
| |