Hi Sascha. > > While working with this I get the impression that the core > > should know about pwm channels and device_d pointer > > should be part of the core data. > > I know it's done like this in Linux. Any good reason to do this in > barebox aswell besides of "do it as in Linux"? The overall structure is something like this: PWM Controller PWM Channel +------------+ | | +------------+ | pwm_chip |====>| pwm_device |+ | | +------------+| +------------+ +------------+ And with the current core support each implementation needs to provide their owm implementation of this. And I can see the core has data I think belongs on another level. So having better core support should simplify the individual implementations a bit - I think. When I get pwm-atmel working I may try to give it a shot. If things turns out positivie I will post patches. Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
