Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752473Ab1CJVeo (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:34:44 -0500 Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:36153 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249Ab1CJVen (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:34:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201103100836.54361.alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com> References: <1299701596-24665-1-git-send-email-bgat@billgatliff.com> <1299701596-24665-4-git-send-email-bgat@billgatliff.com> <201103100836.54361.alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:34:42 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PWM v7 3/3] PWM: Atmel PWMC driver From: Bill Gatliff To: Alexander Stein Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1929 Lines: 44 Alexander: On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Alexander Stein wrote: > As far as I can see, the previosly support for pwm_channel_handler has been > dropped. The new API doesn't support such things. > What do you think about adding this? It might be important to change the PWM > setup after a specific amount of time. Reviewers of the implementation noted some race conditions, and had additional objections to the implementation. They suggested that I reimplement channel handlers using genirq. Since the pwm_channel_handler implementation was broken, I removed it from the implementation. I haven't yet started on the genirq-based approach, for two reasons: I'm trying to get everything else into mainline; and, I'm not quite sure yet how to stitch genirq together with "genpwm". There is a larger question, however, that I would like to hear your answer on since you seem interested in the subject: are end-of-period callbacks really necessary? If you are trying to "ramp" a PWM signal from a low duty cycle to a high one, would an hrtimer suffice? Assuming that a PWM device driver can implement duty cycle and/or period changes without glitches, is it really necessary to stay so tightly synchronized to the PWM signal the way that an end-of-period callback would allow? In my work, I haven't encountered a need for end-of-period callbacks when doing mere PWM signal generation (though the topic is very important when counting pulses, which I'm considering a different implementation/API for). I don't know if my experience is comprehensive, however. Would love to hear your opinion. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/