On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:32:31 +0100 Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > Hi Lee, > > > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:18:04 +0100 > > Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.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. > Well, I still think what you describe as PWM-in is actually a capture device that would perfectly fit in the IIO subsystem, and I guess you can't use the PWM IP as a capture and waveform generator device as the same time, which is why I suggested the MFD approach to select the mode. Anyway, I'm not the PWM or the IIO maintainer, so I'm just sharing my opinion here. Regards, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
