On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:32:31 +0100
Lee Jones [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

Hi Lee,

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:18:04 +0100
Lee Jones [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

The first part of this set extends the current PWM API to allow external
code to request a PWM Capture.  Subsequent patches then make use of the
new API by providing a userspace offering via /sysfs.  The final part of
the set supplies PWM Capture functionality into the already existing STi
PWM driver.  

Is there a reason you decided to not put this driver in IIO? IMHO, it
would be more appropriate to make your PWM device an MFD that can either
bind to the PWM or the capture driver.
And BTW, IIO already has a sysfs interface (you may have to extend the
API to support your type of capture though).  

Multi-Function Device drivers can only be justified if the IP
contained does not and can not live in a single subsystem.  The IP
which controls both PWM-in and PWM-out in this device is the same.  I
can't fathom a sane reason why you would wish to separate this
functionality over multiple subsystems.

Well, I still think what you describe as PWM-in is actually a capture
device that would perfectly fit in the IIO subsystem, and I guess you
can't use the PWM IP as a capture and waveform generator device as the
same time, which is why I suggested the MFD approach to select the mode.

Anyway, I'm not the PWM or the IIO maintainer, so I'm just sharing my
opinion here.

Regards,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com