Message ID | 20200909162719.7585-3-vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com |
---|---|
State | Changes Requested |
Headers | show |
Series | Add PWM support for Intel Keem Bay SoC | expand |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:27:19AM +0800, vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com wrote: > From: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > > Add PWM Device Tree bindings documentation for the Intel Keem Bay SoC. > > Signed-off-by: Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> nitpick: Your S-o-b should always be last. This way it becomes clear who added the other tags. (No need to resend for this, but as patch 1 need some love, please fix this, too.) Best regards Uwe
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:44:01AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:27:19AM +0800, vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com wrote: > > From: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > > > > Add PWM Device Tree bindings documentation for the Intel Keem Bay SoC. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > nitpick: Your S-o-b should always be last. This way it becomes clear who > added the other tags. I think it should reflect chronological order. If SoB has been given before e.g. Ack then SoB should be followed by Ack and not other way around. But it's my interpretation of the chapter 12. Actually it doesn't say anything about placement (ordering) of Ack. So, formally the above follows the letter of law. What did you have in mind when commenting that? Perhaps I missed documentation.
Hello Andy, On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:37:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:44:01AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:27:19AM +0800, vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > > > > > > Add PWM Device Tree bindings documentation for the Intel Keem Bay SoC. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > > > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > > > nitpick: Your S-o-b should always be last. This way it becomes clear who > > added the other tags. > > I think it should reflect chronological order. If SoB has been given before > e.g. Ack then SoB should be followed by Ack and not other way around. This is how I interpret the rules even though I admit it is not formalized explicitly. The idea is just what I wrote, when the patch ends up in git with: Signed-off-by: Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Maintainer <p.maintainer@tralala> I'd expect that is was Peter M. who added Rob's and my tag, while when it is Signed-off-by: Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Maintainer <p.maintainer@tralala> it was Vijayakannan who added them. IMHO this makes sense as Vijayakannan modified the commit log and then it is usual to add the signature at the end. In my eyes this is more sensible than the date order, but it seems this is subjective. I'm aware that most people don't care; and I don't care enough to argue this case any further. Best regards Uwe
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:34:03AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:37:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:44:01AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:27:19AM +0800, vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com wrote: > > > > From: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > > > > > > > > Add PWM Device Tree bindings documentation for the Intel Keem Bay SoC. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > > > > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > > > > > nitpick: Your S-o-b should always be last. This way it becomes clear who > > > added the other tags. > > > > I think it should reflect chronological order. If SoB has been given before > > e.g. Ack then SoB should be followed by Ack and not other way around. > > This is how I interpret the rules even though I admit it is not > formalized explicitly. The idea is just what I wrote, when the patch > ends up in git with: > > Signed-off-by: Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Peter Maintainer <p.maintainer@tralala> > > I'd expect that is was Peter M. who added Rob's and my tag, while when > it is > > Signed-off-by: Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Vijayakannan Ayyathurai <vijayakannan.ayyathurai@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Peter Maintainer <p.maintainer@tralala> > > it was Vijayakannan who added them. > > IMHO this makes sense as Vijayakannan modified the commit log and then > it is usual to add the signature at the end. In my eyes this is more > sensible than the date order, but it seems this is subjective. > > I'm aware that most people don't care; and I don't care enough to argue > this case any further. This makes sense. Consider that we are on the same page. Thanks!
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/intel,keembay-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/intel,keembay-pwm.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..a37433487632 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/intel,keembay-pwm.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +# Copyright (C) 2020 Intel Corporation +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pwm/intel,keembay-pwm.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: Intel Keem Bay PWM Device Tree Bindings + +maintainers: + - Vineetha G. Jaya Kumaran <vineetha.g.jaya.kumaran@intel.com> + +allOf: + - $ref: pwm.yaml# + +properties: + compatible: + enum: + - intel,keembay-pwm + + reg: + maxItems: 1 + + clocks: + maxItems: 1 + + "#pwm-cells": + const: 2 + +required: + - compatible + - reg + - clocks + - '#pwm-cells' + +additionalProperties: false + +examples: + - | + #define KEEM_BAY_A53_GPIO + + pwm@203200a0 { + compatible = "intel,keembay-pwm"; + reg = <0x203200a0 0xe8>; + clocks = <&scmi_clk KEEM_BAY_A53_GPIO>; + #pwm-cells = <2>; + };