Hi!
+Challenges
+
+One of the difficulties in implementing a generic PWM framework is the
+fact that pulse-width-modulation applications involve real-world
+signals, which often must be carefully managed to prevent destruction
+of hardware that is linked to those signals. A DC motor that
+static void
+gpio_pwm_work (struct work_struct *work)
+{
+ struct gpio_pwm *gp = container_of(work, struct gpio_pwm, work);
+
+ if (gp-active)
+ gpio_direction_output(gp-gpio, gp-polarity ? 1 : 0);
+ else
+ gpio_direction_output(gp-gpio, gp-polarity ?
Pavel Machek wrote:
Exactly; if your hw can be damaged by software, it was misdesigned.
Is the paragraph #1 really neccessary?
It provides a little background on the subject matter. I don't think
it's mandatory, but I don't see the harm in keeping it. I think it
improves the document
+pwm_free() -- Marks a PWM channel as no longer in use. The PWM device
+is stopped before it is released by the API.
free is normally used for something else. Rename to open/close?
... or request/release?
Works for me.
+pwm_start(), pwm_stop() -- Turns the PWM signal on and
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 21:46 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
Chris,
Firstly inform the linux-embedded maintainers :)
I think it's a good suggestion to add a config option
(CONFIG_READAHEAD_SIZE). Will update the patch..
I don't have a strong opinion here beyond the nagging feeling that we
11.02.2010, в 23:58, Pavel Machek написал(а):
On Thu 2010-02-11 14:35:14, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Pavel Machek wrote:
+static void
+gpio_pwm_work (struct work_struct *work)
+{
+ struct gpio_pwm *gp = container_of(work, struct gpio_pwm, work);
+
+ if (gp-active)
+
