Hi Miguel, I think your enhancements should be their own driver. Plain PWM is such a basic need and feature that I think the interface for it should be as simple as possible. I'm also concerned about the memory footprint increase, which is 3x that of the original interface (and that's just the data structure).
For the nrf52 specifically you could implement the old interface driver on top of a driver with the new proposed interface. My 2 cents, Markus On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:51:50 -0300 Miguel Azevedo <miguella...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I recently implemented a few new features for the nRF52 PWM driver and > will probably implement them for soft PWM as well. > > The features: > * Interrupts fired every cycle with user handler and parameter data; > * A mode where the device plays for n cycles; > * Interrupts fired at the end of a sequence of n cycles with user > handler and parameter data. > > These changes are PRed here: > https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/pull/836 > > There is an example (pwm_test) which uses the also PRed easing > library: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/pull/822 > > These features change the pwm_chan_cfg datastructure on pwm.h, wich is > general to all drivers. > I can argue that these features are implementable on virtually any PWM > device since every hardware PWM implementation I've seen so far uses > timers and counters, however there might be (and probably are) > exceptions. > Anyway a driver which doesn't use these new fields on this > datastructure is still implementable(well, we have soft PWM using the > sabe API interface and it works). > > The alternative to this would be to write a datastructure on the > driver's implementation header file (pwm_nrf52.h in this case) with > the new fields. > > What do you think? > > Best, > > Miguel Azevedo
