Cc the atmel maintainers that may want to chime in. On 27/09/2013 17:51, Milo Kim wrote: > On 09/26/2013 04:48 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> >> 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(). > If we do what you suggest, I'm afraid we will enable pwm channels that have no consumers. Isn't pwm_disable() suppose to disable the pwm channels ? I believe that is what is done on the other platforms. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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
