On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:15:37PM +0200, Lars Poeschel wrote: [...] > You mean change only while a PWM is disabled ?Ok, as said above, I need to be > able to change at least the duty cycle while the PWM is running without > having gaps. But prohibiting changes of the period could be done with > returning -EBUSY. Okay, that sounds acceptable. duty-cycle should be the only value that can be changed while a PWM is enabled. Obviously it should still return -EINVAL if the duty-cycle is larger than the period, but the PWM core will take care of that automatically. By the way, would you mind elaborating a bit on the various use-cases that you have? I'm interested in what people use the PWM subsystem for and you seem to be the only one currently using it from userspace. I'm hoping I can get a better understanding of what the PWM subsystem nedes to provide if I know what people use it for. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpSQcWea78_c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
