On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
>> > One other problem is that some PWM devices cannot be setup to achieve a
>> > 0% or 100% duty-cycle but instead will toggle for at least one period.
>> > This would be another argument in favour of moving the functionality to
>> > the
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:20:38AM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:47:52 +0100, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:10:24PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:57 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
>
On 11/29/2012 05:10 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> /* Enable GPIO us of the PWMs */
>> gpio-controller = <1>;
>
> This line should be simply (the property shouldn't have any data):
> gpio-controller;
Yes I know. It is like this already in my code. I just mixed up things while
hacking
On 11/30/2012 11:20 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> Umm, I agree with you on duty cycle, but that's got nothing to do with
> period. 100% duty cycle looks exactly the same whether the period is
> 10ns or 100s.
Yes this is true. But some PWM hw can select it's clock based on the period_ns
provided.
In
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:47:52 +0100, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:10:24PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:57 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
> > >
> > > On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > You're
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:47:52 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:10:24PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:57 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
wrote:
Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM,
On 11/30/2012 11:20 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
Umm, I agree with you on duty cycle, but that's got nothing to do with
period. 100% duty cycle looks exactly the same whether the period is
10ns or 100s.
Yes this is true. But some PWM hw can select it's clock based on the period_ns
provided.
In most
On 11/29/2012 05:10 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
/* Enable GPIO us of the PWMs */
gpio-controller = 1;
This line should be simply (the property shouldn't have any data):
gpio-controller;
Yes I know. It is like this already in my code. I just mixed up things while
hacking it
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:20:38AM +, Grant Likely wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:47:52 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:10:24PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:57 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
One other problem is that some PWM devices cannot be setup to achieve a
0% or 100% duty-cycle but instead will toggle for at least one period.
This would be another argument in favour of moving the
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:10:24PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:57 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi
> wrote:
> > Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
> >
> > On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
> > > is
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:57 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi
wrote:
> Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
>
> On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
> > is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation node
> > really
On 11/28/2012 08:30 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> I must say I'm not terribly thrilled to integrate something like this
> into the PWM subsystem.
I agree. I would not really want to add my name to something like this either...
> I wish hardware engineers wouldn't come up with such designs.
I have
On 11/28/2012 08:30 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
I must say I'm not terribly thrilled to integrate something like this
into the PWM subsystem.
I agree. I would not really want to add my name to something like this either...
I wish hardware engineers wouldn't come up with such designs.
I have
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:57 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
wrote:
Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:10:24PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:57 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
wrote:
Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
is
On 11/28/2012 09:54 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
>
> On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
>> is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation node
>> really doesn't make sense
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:54:57AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
>
> On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
> > is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation node
> >
Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
> is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation node
> really doesn't make sense because it is entirely a software construct.
> In
Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation node
really doesn't make sense because it is entirely a software construct.
In fact,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:54:57AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation node
really
On 11/28/2012 09:54 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry,
On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which
is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation node
really doesn't make sense because
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:44:36 +0100, 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.
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 have a
> device tree node for them, while using the pwm as gpio is just a different
> function of the
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. But that's not your
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
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 have a
device tree node for them, while using the pwm as gpio is just a different
function of the same
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:44:36 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
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
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. But that's not your fault.
>>
>> It's pretty horrible to have a separate
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. 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
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
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
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:42:03 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi
wrote:
> There seams to be board designs using PWM generators as enable/disable
> signals.
> For these boards we used to have custom code as hacks to deal with such a
> situations.
> With the gpio-pwm driver we can emulate the GPIO
There seams to be board designs using PWM generators as enable/disable signals.
For these boards we used to have custom code as hacks to deal with such a
situations.
With the gpio-pwm driver we can emulate the GPIO functionality using PWM
generators via standard interfaces. The PWM will be
There seams to be board designs using PWM generators as enable/disable signals.
For these boards we used to have custom code as hacks to deal with such a
situations.
With the gpio-pwm driver we can emulate the GPIO functionality using PWM
generators via standard interfaces. The PWM will be
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:42:03 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
wrote:
There seams to be board designs using PWM generators as enable/disable
signals.
For these boards we used to have custom code as hacks to deal with such a
situations.
With the gpio-pwm driver we can emulate the
36 matches
Mail list logo
