Re: [PATCH v1] pwm: add sysfs interface

[Thierry Reding]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:15:37PM +0200, Lars Poeschel wrote:
[...]
> You mean change only while a PWM is disabled ?Ok, as said above, I need to be 
> able to change at least the duty cycle while the PWM is running without 
> having gaps. But prohibiting changes of the period could be done with 
> returning -EBUSY.

Okay, that sounds acceptable. duty-cycle should be the only value that
can be changed while a PWM is enabled. Obviously it should still return
-EINVAL if the duty-cycle is larger than the period, but the PWM core
will take care of that automatically.

By the way, would you mind elaborating a bit on the various use-cases
that you have? I'm interested in what people use the PWM subsystem for
and you seem to be the only one currently using it from userspace. I'm
hoping I can get a better understanding of what the PWM subsystem nedes
to provide if I know what people use it for.

Thierry

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature