From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from asavdk3.altibox.net ([109.247.116.14]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.89 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1eXiux-0007qS-QG for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 07:29:26 +0000 Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 08:29:03 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg Message-ID: <20180106072903.GA9286@ravnborg.org> References: <20180101213332.GA7937@ravnborg.org> <20180105111930.m6l7oklzjevsw7ly@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180105111930.m6l7oklzjevsw7ly@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pwm: add pwm-atmel from Linux kernel 4.14 To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Barebox List Hi Sascha. > > While working with this I get the impression that the core > > should know about pwm channels and device_d pointer > > should be part of the core data. > > I know it's done like this in Linux. Any good reason to do this in > barebox aswell besides of "do it as in Linux"? The overall structure is something like this: PWM Controller PWM Channel +------------+ | | +------------+ | pwm_chip |====>| pwm_device |+ | | +------------+| +------------+ +------------+ And with the current core support each implementation needs to provide their owm implementation of this. And I can see the core has data I think belongs on another level. So having better core support should simplify the individual implementations a bit - I think. When I get pwm-atmel working I may try to give it a shot. If things turns out positivie I will post patches. Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox