From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Gatliff Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Proposal for a Generic PWM Device API Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:59:08 -0500 Message-ID: <48EF5FAC.1060807@billgatliff.com> References: <1223608819.8157.127.camel@pasglop> <48EED4D1.2040506@billgatliff.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux/PPC Development , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Were did you actually sent them to? Apparently you sent them to each mailing > list (at least linux-embedded and linuxppc-dev) _separately_ (or using bcc). I sent them separately to linux-embedded, linuxppc-dev, and linux-arm-kernel. Those three groups seemed to have the developers who were most likely to provide a motivated review and constructive response; unfortunately, some are subscriber-only and so I couldn't just cross-post. I was expecting some criticism for this, but I'm not sure there's a good alternative. I don't like the idea of posting in so many places, but PWM is a pretty expansive topic: just about every SoC under the sun has some ability to do PWM, and people use the signals for all sorts of things. Both have to be taken into consideration by the API, hence I need lots of review and feedback. There isn't a lot of traffic on linux-embedded, and I'm not sure how many people who read linux-arm-kernel also read linuxppc-dev. Lkml's topic coverage is huge, so I don't know how many hardcore embedded developers I would encounter there. I was hoping for a round of feedback at a lower level before pushing anything upstream like that. > Hence different people may give the same comments without knowing about each > other, and you may have to explain everything multiple times. Hasn't been a problem so far. I posted the first version of the code on l-a-k, and got some feedback on the pwm_device API and a lot of feedback on the way users wanted to use the API to realize applications. I incorporated all of it, and in this "release" I broadened the exposure per recommendations received from l-a-k. > I would go for lkml and linux-embedded, _together_. So, you're saying the same thing as me, basically. But leaving out the lists with very high ratios of device-specific domain knowledge, which is important for the backend parts of what I'm proposing. Blackfin's PWM-capable peripherals work differently from those commonly found in ARM and PPC, for example. I haven't run anything by the MIPS or AVR guys, but I'm guessing they would have something to add, too. I'm beginning to appreciate what everyone must have had to deal with for GPIO. :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from venus.billgatliff.com (venus.billgatliff.com [209.251.101.201]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3458ADE37D for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:59:06 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <48EF5FAC.1060807@billgatliff.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:59:08 -0500 From: Bill Gatliff MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Proposal for a Generic PWM Device API References: <1223608819.8157.127.camel@pasglop> <48EED4D1.2040506@billgatliff.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, Linux/PPC Development List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Were did you actually sent them to? Apparently you sent them to each mailing > list (at least linux-embedded and linuxppc-dev) _separately_ (or using bcc). I sent them separately to linux-embedded, linuxppc-dev, and linux-arm-kernel. Those three groups seemed to have the developers who were most likely to provide a motivated review and constructive response; unfortunately, some are subscriber-only and so I couldn't just cross-post. I was expecting some criticism for this, but I'm not sure there's a good alternative. I don't like the idea of posting in so many places, but PWM is a pretty expansive topic: just about every SoC under the sun has some ability to do PWM, and people use the signals for all sorts of things. Both have to be taken into consideration by the API, hence I need lots of review and feedback. There isn't a lot of traffic on linux-embedded, and I'm not sure how many people who read linux-arm-kernel also read linuxppc-dev. Lkml's topic coverage is huge, so I don't know how many hardcore embedded developers I would encounter there. I was hoping for a round of feedback at a lower level before pushing anything upstream like that. > Hence different people may give the same comments without knowing about each > other, and you may have to explain everything multiple times. Hasn't been a problem so far. I posted the first version of the code on l-a-k, and got some feedback on the pwm_device API and a lot of feedback on the way users wanted to use the API to realize applications. I incorporated all of it, and in this "release" I broadened the exposure per recommendations received from l-a-k. > I would go for lkml and linux-embedded, _together_. So, you're saying the same thing as me, basically. But leaving out the lists with very high ratios of device-specific domain knowledge, which is important for the backend parts of what I'm proposing. Blackfin's PWM-capable peripherals work differently from those commonly found in ARM and PPC, for example. I haven't run anything by the MIPS or AVR guys, but I'm guessing they would have something to add, too. I'm beginning to appreciate what everyone must have had to deal with for GPIO. :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com