| Message ID | 20191211150021.20125-1-benjamin.gaignard@st.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt-bindings: pwm: fix nodename pattern | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:00 AM Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> wrote: > > Typical pwm nodes should be named pwm@xxx. > The pattern shouldn't match nodes named pwm-xxx to avoid > conflicts with pinmux or pwm-fan nodes. It only matches pwm-$(a-hex-number), not any string, so that shouldn't be a problem. This is needed for things like GPIO based devices (not just PWMs) which don't have any address. Pinmux nodes are going to need to adopt some sort of standard pattern we can match on. > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml > index fa4f9de92090..29b86886c282 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ maintainers: > > properties: > $nodename: > - pattern: "^pwm(@.*|-[0-9a-f])*$" > + pattern: "^pwm(@.*[0-9a-f])*$" > > "#pwm-cells": > description: > -- > 2.15.0 >
On 12/11/19 8:52 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:00 AM Benjamin Gaignard > <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> wrote: >> Typical pwm nodes should be named pwm@xxx. >> The pattern shouldn't match nodes named pwm-xxx to avoid >> conflicts with pinmux or pwm-fan nodes. > It only matches pwm-$(a-hex-number), not any string, so that shouldn't > be a problem. This is needed for things like GPIO based devices (not > just PWMs) which don't have any address. > > Pinmux nodes are going to need to adopt some sort of standard pattern > we can match on. I have push a patch to stop using '@' and '_' in pinmux groups names: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1162591/ It remove the warnings when compiling the devicetre with W=12 but pwm.yaml complain because pwm pinmux is named pwm-1. How can I solve these issues at the same time ? Benjamin > >> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml >> index fa4f9de92090..29b86886c282 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml >> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ maintainers: >> >> properties: >> $nodename: >> - pattern: "^pwm(@.*|-[0-9a-f])*$" >> + pattern: "^pwm(@.*[0-9a-f])*$" >> >> "#pwm-cells": >> description: >> -- >> 2.15.0 >>
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:16 AM Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> wrote: > > > On 12/11/19 8:52 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:00 AM Benjamin Gaignard > > <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> wrote: > >> Typical pwm nodes should be named pwm@xxx. > >> The pattern shouldn't match nodes named pwm-xxx to avoid > >> conflicts with pinmux or pwm-fan nodes. > > It only matches pwm-$(a-hex-number), not any string, so that shouldn't > > be a problem. This is needed for things like GPIO based devices (not > > just PWMs) which don't have any address. > > > > Pinmux nodes are going to need to adopt some sort of standard pattern > > we can match on. > I have push a patch to stop using '@' and '_' in pinmux groups names: > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1162591/ > It remove the warnings when compiling the devicetre with W=12 but pwm.yaml > complain because pwm pinmux is named pwm-1. > > How can I solve these issues at the same time ? Name the nodes *-pins or *-pins-[0-9]. You're probably going to need some pattern anyways when you do a pinmux schema. Rob
On 12/12/19 8:07 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:16 AM Benjamin GAIGNARD > <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> wrote: >> >> On 12/11/19 8:52 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:00 AM Benjamin Gaignard >>> <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> wrote: >>>> Typical pwm nodes should be named pwm@xxx. >>>> The pattern shouldn't match nodes named pwm-xxx to avoid >>>> conflicts with pinmux or pwm-fan nodes. >>> It only matches pwm-$(a-hex-number), not any string, so that shouldn't >>> be a problem. This is needed for things like GPIO based devices (not >>> just PWMs) which don't have any address. >>> >>> Pinmux nodes are going to need to adopt some sort of standard pattern >>> we can match on. >> I have push a patch to stop using '@' and '_' in pinmux groups names: >> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1162591/ >> It remove the warnings when compiling the devicetre with W=12 but pwm.yaml >> complain because pwm pinmux is named pwm-1. >> >> How can I solve these issues at the same time ? > Name the nodes *-pins or *-pins-[0-9]. You're probably going to need > some pattern anyways when you do a pinmux schema. + Alex because that impact pin node pattern in st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml Benjamin > Rob
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml index fa4f9de92090..29b86886c282 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ maintainers: properties: $nodename: - pattern: "^pwm(@.*|-[0-9a-f])*$" + pattern: "^pwm(@.*[0-9a-f])*$" "#pwm-cells": description:
Typical pwm nodes should be named pwm@xxx. The pattern shouldn't match nodes named pwm-xxx to avoid conflicts with pinmux or pwm-fan nodes. Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.yaml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)