Hi!

quoted

quoted

One such example is the laptop in front of me, which has 3 channels
wired to an RGB LED and 1 channel wired as a backlight control signal
(i.e. using pwm-backlight).  Another example is a devboard where the
4 channels are wired to 4 LEDs.

Ok, so this is actually important. In this case you should have PWM
layer, exporting PWMs, and then rgb-LED driver that takes three of
those PWMs and turns them into LED, no?

And ... surprise ... that is likely to help other people, as LEDs
connected to PWMs are quite common.

Hmm.?

If you can't do this for some reason, you should probably explain in
the changelog, because this is going to be FAQ.

This is exactly what the downstream implementation does and in the case
of a solid color LED this works fine.

But the hardware has a shared chunk of memory where you can write
duty-cycle values, then for each PWM channel you can specify the
start/stop index and pace for the PWM to read and update the configured
duty-cycle. This is how the hardware implements pattern support.

Ok.

So downstream they have (last time I looked at the code) an addition in
the PWM API where the LED driver can inform the PWM driver part about
the indices to use. Naturally I don't think that's a good idea.

Dunno. Is it bad idea?

pattern support for other PWMs (vibration?) seems useful, too. Yes, it
means more discussion and extending PWMs properly..

Additionally, representing this as individual PWM channels means we're
loosing the grouping that now comes from the description of multicolor
LEDs, which serves the basis for synchronizing the pattern traversal
between the involved channels.

Yes, keeping grouping would be nice, but perhaps pattern API for PWMs
can do that too?

You can have solid-color-only driver now, with patterns being added
as discussion with PWM people progresses...

Best regards,
									Pavel

--