From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thierry.reding@gmail.com (Thierry Reding) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:01:14 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] pwm: lpc18xx-sct: don't reconfigure PWM in .request and .free In-Reply-To: <1391bbe1-75b5-c86e-ed3a-1e1afb393917@mleia.com> References: <20181114115025.GC2620@ulmo> <20181116065208.3920-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1391bbe1-75b5-c86e-ed3a-1e1afb393917@mleia.com> Message-ID: <20181116100114.GB28631@ulmo> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:22:49AM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Hello Uwe, > > On 11/16/2018 08:52 AM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > Regarding the .request case: The consumer might be interested in taking > > over the configured state from the boot loader. So the initially > > configured state should be retained. > > > > For the free case the PWM consumer is responsible to disable the PWM > > before calling pwm_release and there are three subcases to consider: > > > > the changes are fine per se, but please split them into two. > > Probably pwm_disable() misusage began spreading from commit 54b2a999a1675. It's not really misusage to call pwm_disable(). It's basically just a shortcut for ->disable() or the atomic equivalent for it. So I think the commit that you point to is doing exactly the right thing. Also note that that commit was made 6 years ago, and a lot of things have changed since then. Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: