devicetree.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
To: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
	devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: New driver for GPO emulation using PWM generators
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:30:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50B344D6.8030608@metafoo.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50AF4584.7020604@ti.com>

On 11/23/2012 10:44 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Hi Grant,
> 
> On 11/23/2012 10:13 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> On 11/23/2012 08:55 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Ugh. and this is why I wanted the PWM and GPIO subsystems to use the
>>> same namespace and binding. <grumble, mutter> But that's not your fault.
>>>
>>> It's pretty horrible to have a separate translator node to convert a PWM
>>> into a GPIO (with output only of course). The gpio properties should
>>> appear directly in the PWM node itself and the translation code should
>>> be in either the pwm or the gpio core. I don't think it should look like
>>> a separate device.
>>
>> Let me see if I understand your suggestion correctly. In the DT you suggest
>> something like this:
>>
>> twl_pwmled: pwmled {
>> 	compatible = "ti,twl4030-pwmled";
>> 	#pwm-cells = <2>;
>> 	#gpio-cells = <2>;
>> 	gpio-controller;
>> };
> 
> After I thought about this.. Is this what we really want?
> After all what we have here is a PWM generator used to emulate a GPIO signal.
> The PWM itself can be used for driving a LED (standard LED or backlight and we
> have DT bindings for these already), vibra motor, or other things.
> If we combine the PWM with GPIO we should go and 'bloat' the DT node to also
> include all sort of other uses of PWM at once?
> 
> IMHO it is better to keep them as separate things.
> pwm node to describe the PWM generator,
> separate nodes to describe it's uses like led, backlight, motor and gpio.
> 

The difference here is that the LED, backlight, etc are all different
physical devices begin driven by the pwm pin, so it makes sense to have a
device tree node for them, while using the pwm as gpio is just a different
function of the same physical pin.  So in a sense the pwm controller also
becomes a gpio controller. I like the idea of the pwm core automatically
instantiating a pwm-gpo device if it sees a gpio-controller property in the
pwm device devicetree node.

- Lars

  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-26 10:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-22 13:42 [PATCH] gpio: New driver for GPO emulation using PWM generators Peter Ujfalusi
2012-11-23  7:55 ` Grant Likely
2012-11-23  9:13   ` Peter Ujfalusi
2012-11-23  9:44     ` Peter Ujfalusi
2012-11-26 10:30       ` Lars-Peter Clausen [this message]
2012-11-26 11:36         ` Peter Ujfalusi
2012-11-26 15:46       ` Grant Likely
2012-11-28  8:54         ` Peter Ujfalusi
     [not found]           ` <50B5D161.6010200-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2012-11-28 19:30             ` Thierry Reding
2012-11-29 12:18               ` Peter Ujfalusi
2012-11-28 21:02           ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2012-11-29 16:10           ` Grant Likely
2012-11-30  6:47             ` Thierry Reding
2012-11-30 10:20               ` Grant Likely
2012-11-30 10:47                 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2012-11-30 11:04                 ` Thierry Reding
2012-11-30 11:09                   ` Grant Likely
2012-11-30 11:00             ` Peter Ujfalusi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=50B344D6.8030608@metafoo.de \
    --to=lars@metafoo.de \
    --cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peter.ujfalusi@ti.com \
    --cc=rob@landley.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).