[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:32:31 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...inux.com,
ajitpal.singh@...com, thierry.reding@...il.com,
maxime.coquelin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] pwm: Add support for PWM Capture
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:18:04 +0100
> Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> > The first part of this set extends the current PWM API to allow external
> > code to request a PWM Capture. Subsequent patches then make use of the
> > new API by providing a userspace offering via /sysfs. The final part of
> > the set supplies PWM Capture functionality into the already existing STi
> > PWM driver.
>
> Is there a reason you decided to not put this driver in IIO? IMHO, it
> would be more appropriate to make your PWM device an MFD that can either
> bind to the PWM or the capture driver.
> And BTW, IIO already has a sysfs interface (you may have to extend the
> API to support your type of capture though).
Multi-Function Device drivers can only be justified if the IP
contained does not and can not live in a single subsystem. The IP
which controls both PWM-in and PWM-out in this device is the same. I
can't fathom a sane reason why you would wish to separate this
functionality over multiple subsystems.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists