[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181012114749.GC31561@ulmo>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:47:49 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, andy.gross@...aro.org,
david.brown@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jonathan@...ek.ca, ctatlor97@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] treewide: add vibrator support for various MSM
SOCs
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 07:51:09PM -0400, Brian Masney wrote:
> This patch set adds support for the vibrator found on various Qualcomm
> MSM SOCs. This is based on work from:
>
> Jonathan Marek from qcom,pwm-vibrator.c in the PostmarketOS repo:
> https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/linux-postmarketos/commit/7647fb36cb1cbd060f8b52087a68ab93583292b5
>
> Jongrak Kwon and Devin Kim from msm_pwm_vibrator.c in the downstream
> Android 3.4.0 sources:
> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-msm-lenok-3.10-lollipop-wear-release/drivers/misc/msm_pwm_vibrator.c
>
> Driver was tested on a LG Nexus 5 (hammerhead) phone using rumble-test:
> https://git.collabora.com/cgit/user/sre/rumble-test.git/plain/rumble-test.c
Looking at all of this it seems like this would be more appropriately
implemented as a force-feedback input device directly. The only reason
you seem to be making this a PWM driver is so that it can be used in
conjunction with pwm-vibrator. The device itself doesn't seem to be a
generic PWM in the way that the PWM framework expects it.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists