On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:54 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > Add the flag and corresponding documentation for PWM_USAGE_POWER. > > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt | 3 +++ > > include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > Rob, what are your thoughts on this? I've been thinking about this some > more and I'm having second thoughts about putting this into device tree > because it doesn't actually describe a property of the PWM hardware but > rather a use-case specific hint. It's a bit of a gray area because this > is just part of the PWM specifier which already has use-case specific > "configuration", such as the period and the polarity. I'm pretty neutral. My main hesitation from what I've followed is 'power' seems a bit indirect. A PWM signal doesn't have a 'power' any more than a GPIO signal does. > Perhaps a better place for this is within the PWM API? We could add the > same information into struct pwm_state and then consumers that don't > care about specifics of the signal (such as pwm-backlight) can set that > flag when they request a state to be applied. Yeah, seems like this is fairly well tied to the class of consumer. Rob
