Hi, On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:20:17PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2017-07-14 12:01:49, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > > Add DT binding document for PWM controlled vibrator devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> > > > index 000000000000..09145d18491d > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/pwm-vibrator.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ > > +* PWM vibrator device tree bindings > > + > > +Registers a PWM device as vibrator. It is expected, that the vibrator's > > +strength increases based on the duty cycle of the enable PWM channel > > +(100% duty cycle meaning strongest vibration, 0% meaning no vibration). > > + > > +The binding supports an optional direction PWM channel, that can be > > +driven at fixed duty cycle. If available this is can be used to increase > > +the vibration effect of some devices. > > Actually what "direction" does would be nice to explain, because I > don't know. Does it make the motor turn the other way around? Yes, at least that's how I understand it. IIUIC this will increase the imbalance effect and thus the vibration. > > +Required properties: > > +- compatible: should contain "pwm-vibrator" > > should->Should. > > > +- pwm-names: Should contain "enable" and optionally "direction" > > +- pwms: Should contain a PWM handle for each entry in pwm-names > > + > > +Optional properties: > > +- vcc-supply: Phandle for the regulator supplying power > > +- direction-duty-cycle-ns: Duty cycle of the direction PWM channel in > > + nanoseconds, defaults to 50% of the channel's > > + period. > > Is nanoseconds right unit here? It drives a motor... Yes, for the driving the motor the values will be very big and we could use milliseconds. But the PWM specifier [0] uses nanoseconds for the period and I think period and duty cycle should be described in the same scale. [0] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
