On 09/26/2013 04:48 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
On 26/09/2013 09:34, Milo Kim wrote:
Ah, I didn't mean the pinctrl subsystem. Sorry for confusing you.
I just want to know the reason why 'atmel_pwm_disable()' releases the
PWM pin.
I can't find it in the driver. Am I missing something?
Hum, maybe my wording was wrong. What I meant is that when that
disabling the PWM channel by using the PWM_DIS
register, the PWM is not driving the pin anymore. Then, the level goes
from low (which is correct) to high. Also, the datasheet specifies that
the pwm has to be enabled to get the correct level when duty == 0 or
duty == period.
IIRC, this is not the same on TI SoC where duty == 0 don't give you the
expected behavior and I can understand why there is a pwm_disable()
there. Maybe we have to have a way to differentiate both cases ?
Based on your result, PWM_DIS should be updated when the driver is
unloaded - no PWM consumer anymore.
Why don't you move PWM_DIS register access code from atmel_pwm_disable()
to atmel_pwm_remove()?
If it makes sense, the PWM_EN code also needs to be moved to _probe().
Best regards,
Milo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
