On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:51:06 +0100 Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2016-01-30 5:26 GMT+01:00 David Rivshin (Allworx) > <drivshin.allworx@xxxxxxxxx>: > > From: David Rivshin <drivshin@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > After going through the math and constraints checking to compute > > load and match values, it is helpful to know what the resultant > > period and duty cycle are. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Rivshin <drivshin@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > I found this helpful while testing the other changes, so I included > > it in case it may be of use to someone in the future. I would have > > no issues with dropping this if it's not considered worthwhile. > > It's useful, but converting it as a sysfs attribute would be great ! Hrm, yes that is an interesting thought. I imagine that many PWM devices have similar constraints, so perhaps that would be best handled generically in the pwm core? Maybe as new optional get_*() ops, a modification to the config() op to add output params, or just updating new fields in the struct pwm directly? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
