> I'm not sure that the logic:
> 1. Default counter assigned to the bank
> 2. Unused counter that is assigned to other bank
> 3. Fallback to default counter
> is the best one.
Hi Richard
It it totally broken, as you point out. That is why i said it needs to
be limited to two PWMs.
> IMHO, I woul
Hi,
On 06/08/2018 15:52, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 10:29:16AM +0800, Aditya Prayoga wrote:
>> On multiple PWM lines, if the other PWM counter is unused, allocate it
>> to next PWM request. The priority would be:
>> 1. Default counter assigned to the bank
>> 2. Unused counter tha
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:53 PM Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 10:29:16AM +0800, Aditya Prayoga wrote:
> > On multiple PWM lines, if the other PWM counter is unused, allocate it
> > to next PWM request. The priority would be:
> > 1. Default counter assigned to the bank
> > 2. Unused
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 10:29:16AM +0800, Aditya Prayoga wrote:
> On multiple PWM lines, if the other PWM counter is unused, allocate it
> to next PWM request. The priority would be:
> 1. Default counter assigned to the bank
> 2. Unused counter that is assigned to other bank
> 3. Fallback to defaul
4 matches
Mail list logo
