From: ghost <2990955050@qq.com>
Add compatible string for PWM controller on SG2044.
Signed-off-by: Longbin Li <looong.bin@gmail.com>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml
index bbb6326d47d7..e0e91aa237ec 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml
@@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ allOf:
properties:
compatible:
- const: sophgo,sg2042-pwm
+ enum:
+ - sophgo,sg2042-pwm
+ - sophgo,sg2044-pwm
reg:
maxItems: 1
--
2.48.1
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 03:20:38PM GMT, Longbin Li wrote: > From: ghost <2990955050@qq.com> > > Add compatible string for PWM controller on SG2044. > > Signed-off-by: Longbin Li <looong.bin@gmail.com> Messed SoB and From. Use known identities, not ghosts. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hello, On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 03:20:38PM +0800, Longbin Li wrote: > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > index bbb6326d47d7..e0e91aa237ec 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ allOf: > > properties: > compatible: > - const: sophgo,sg2042-pwm > + enum: > + - sophgo,sg2042-pwm > + - sophgo,sg2044-pwm Given that the sg2044 has more registers (to e.g. implement different polarity), but the sg2042 registers are identical, I wonder if the 2044 device should use: compatible = "sophgo,sg2044-pwm", "sophgo,sg2042-pwm"; Note, I'm unsure here, only providing input to people who are more knowledgeable in DT that I am. Best regards Uwe
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 02:31:24PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 03:20:38PM +0800, Longbin Li wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > > index bbb6326d47d7..e0e91aa237ec 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > > @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ allOf: > > > > properties: > > compatible: > > - const: sophgo,sg2042-pwm > > + enum: > > + - sophgo,sg2042-pwm > > + - sophgo,sg2044-pwm > > Given that the sg2044 has more registers (to e.g. implement different > polarity), but the sg2042 registers are identical, I wonder if the 2044 > device should use: > > compatible = "sophgo,sg2044-pwm", "sophgo,sg2042-pwm"; > > Note, I'm unsure here, only providing input to people who are more > knowledgeable in DT that I am. Depends if s/w only understanding "sophgo,sg2042-pwm" will work on the 2044. IOW, will a kernel without the driver change here work? Rob
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 09:11:19AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 02:31:24PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 03:20:38PM +0800, Longbin Li wrote: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > > > index bbb6326d47d7..e0e91aa237ec 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/sophgo,sg2042-pwm.yaml > > > @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ allOf: > > > > > > properties: > > > compatible: > > > - const: sophgo,sg2042-pwm > > > + enum: > > > + - sophgo,sg2042-pwm > > > + - sophgo,sg2044-pwm > > > > Given that the sg2044 has more registers (to e.g. implement different > > polarity), but the sg2042 registers are identical, I wonder if the 2044 > > device should use: > > > > compatible = "sophgo,sg2044-pwm", "sophgo,sg2042-pwm"; > > > > Note, I'm unsure here, only providing input to people who are more > > knowledgeable in DT that I am. > > Depends if s/w only understanding "sophgo,sg2042-pwm" will work on the > 2044. IOW, will a kernel without the driver change here work? > No luck, the logic for SG2042 is broken on SG2044. In fact, it seems to be more familiar to the pwm ip on CV1800 than it on SG2042. Regards, Inochi
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.