Hey Miguel,
thanks for the background that helps a lot.
I agree that (if this is the way the pwm api should work) the top value should
be explicit. As the return value from pwm_set_frequency would be an option -
given its prominence though it would probably make sense to add an API call for
Hi Markus,
> According to the doc the duty cycle should be absolutely defined between 0
> (no output) and 65535 (full output).
Yes, the doc on the PWM API wasn't updated after the first drivers got
implemented, if you take a look at pwm_nrf52 on my latest pull request
on PWM the driver's doc is
I started implementing a PWM driver for the STM32 processors a few days ago and
ran into an issue I need clarification. According to the doc the duty cycle
should be absolutely defined between 0 (no output) and 65535 (full output).
However, pwm_test and pwm_nrf52 require the application code to
