Re: [PATCH] pwm: Create device class for pwm channels

[Thierry Reding]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:52:56PM -0700, David Hsu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 07:12:04PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >> From: David Hsu <davidhsu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Pwm channels don't send uevents when exported, this change adds the
> >> channels to a pwm class and set their device type to pwm_channel so
> >> uevents are sent.
> >>
> >> To do this properly, the device names need to change to uniquely
> >> identify a channel.  This change is from pwmN to pwm-(chip->base):N
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hsu <davidhsu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/pwm.txt |    6 ++++--
> >>  drivers/pwm/sysfs.c   |   15 ++++++++++++---
> >>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Note, this patch came from David with his work on a system that has
> >> dynamic PWM devices and channels, and we needed some way to tell
> >> userspace what is going on when they are added or removed.  If anyone
> >> knows any other way of doing this that does not involve changing the pwm
> >> names, please let us know.
> >
> > Is it truly PWM channels that dynamically appear and disappear? I'd be
> > interested in how that's achieved, because there are probably other
> > issues that will manifest if you do that. Do you have a pointer to the
> > work that David's been undertaking? Generally some more context on the
> > use-case would be helpful here.
> 
> Only PWM devices are dynamic, the number of channels exposed by
> devices do not change after they've been added to the system.

In that case, would it not be enough to use the uevents generated by the
addition and removal of the PWM chip devices to/from sysfs?

> > Also I'd prefer if this avoided using chip->base here, because it exists
> > purely for legacy purposes and is supposed to go away eventually.
> >
> > Thierry
> 
> Would using dev_name(parent) be an acceptable alternative?

Yes, that sounds like a more sensible choice to me.

Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature