On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:21:50AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [171212 18:06]:
> > I do not follow. Each general-purpose timer module has its own interrupt line,
> > so claiming that irq directly using request_irq seems enough. Could you
> > explain interrupt controller idea a bit more?
>
> Well let's assume we have drivers/clocksource/timer-dm.c implement
> an irq controller. Then the pwm driver would just do:
>
> pwm9: dmtimer-pwm {
> compatible = "ti,omap-dmtimer-pwm";
> #pwm-cells = <3>;
> ti,timers = <&timer9>;
> ti,clock-source = <0x00>; /* timer_sys_ck */
> interrupts-extended = <&timer9 IRQ_TYPE_SOMETHING>;
> };
>
> Then you can do whatever you need to in the pwm driver with
> enable_irq/disable_irq + a handler?
That seems to work. Now should we map 1:1 to timer interrupt or
have separate interrupt for match, overflow and capture?
Former would need some more dm_timer_ops to determine interrupt
source, while later would work "automagically" - but I haven't
tested it yet.
> If reading the line status is needed.. Then maybe the GPIO framework
> needs to have hardware timer support instead?
It does not seem OMAP can read event pin value in event capture mode.
> Anyways, just thinking out loud how we could have a Linux generic
> hardware timer framework that drivers like pwm could then use.
I need a bit longer chain:
dmtimer -> pwm -> rc (which calls ir_raw_event_store from interrupt)
Is extending pwm core with interrpt callback the right thing there?
Something like:
(*pulse_captured)(ktime_t width, ktime_t last_edge);
Thank you,
ladis
--
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
