From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Ujfalusi Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: New driver for GPO emulation using PWM generators Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:36:35 +0100 Message-ID: <50B35443.2040801@ti.com> References: <1353591723-25233-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20121123075537.A14713E0A91@localhost> <50AF3E21.4000009@ti.com> <50AF4584.7020604@ti.com> <50B344D6.8030608@metafoo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50B344D6.8030608@metafoo.de> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: Grant Likely , Linus Walleij , Rob Landley , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org hi, On 11/26/2012 11:30 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > 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 ha= ve a > device tree node for them, while using the pwm as gpio is just a diff= erent > 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 automatica= lly > instantiating a pwm-gpo device if it sees a gpio-controller property = in the > pwm device devicetree node. OK, fair enough. I will go with the plan I described in the first mail = for the GPIO use of PWM. --=20 P=E9ter