From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:04:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/15] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update Message-Id: <20150720100451.GW29614@ulmo> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="UTjKcilERHWBCdCp" List-Id: References: <1435738921-25027-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1435738921-25027-12-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20150720085939.GL29614@ulmo> <20150720114827.2e5d52a5@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <20150720114827.2e5d52a5@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --UTjKcilERHWBCdCp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:48:27AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:59:40 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:57AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: [...] > > > +int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *= state) > > > +{ > > > + int err =3D 0; > > > + > > > + if (!pwm) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + if (!memcmp(state, &pwm->state, sizeof(*state))) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) { > > > + err =3D pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, state); > > > + if (!err) > > > + pwm->state =3D *state; > >=20 > > Maybe we want pwm_set_state() for this? >=20 > I'm not opposed to the addition of the pwm_set_state() function as long > as it's a private one: I don't want to let PMW drivers or users mess up > with the current PWM state. Yeah, it could be a static function in core.c. What I want to avoid is having to change a bunch of code if ever state assignment becomes something other than merely copying a structure. [...] > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h > > > index b47244a..7e99679 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/pwm.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h > > > @@ -151,6 +151,29 @@ static inline enum pwm_polarity pwm_get_polarity= (const struct pwm_device *pwm) > > > return pwm ? pwm->state.polarity : PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; > > > } > > > =20 > > > +/* > > > + * pwm_apply_state - apply a new state to the PWM device > > > + */ > > > +int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *= state); > >=20 > > If you add kerneldoc, please add it properly. It should start with /** > > and you need to list at least the parameters and return value. >=20 > Yes, I'll fix that. > BTW, I remember that you were expecting another name for this function > (pwm_update IIRC). I don't mind the pwm_apply_state() name very much. It's pretty accurate with regards to what it does. Thierry --UTjKcilERHWBCdCp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJVrMfCAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhplEP/38xJM/nYyT1+LWqxsnNyxRe oRc/XLOaMHzNqZoYwKeJtoqsr4LaB1kcPVF2M5W1Wqih0z/jABGYHE4jJun+mJK9 67iMb2GI9QtBjJee1DgX+K6SPJNA5OjGHpOMS3YdcvY03/1OsvLqZMK0wJAxw7Wc Jguplm7Cm7CeDN7kJ+xE3bhe5fNCQa4OSPnSCubBzjdi9+N6yrE+FLXXqBrGYRR3 y05BRt8YG1I/Mc0OPhIywLYfz3rbcYlOBJRMOma4iNHWTi0XSi9LVNxwndu8IgFM L5tHTBuGaQ12naGcZJRrCWYYHfECVYyN15FXzwiFi0n92JEwueL6IyFJIdDBuuOn xUVUmnByb+b9pkI8579r6m4bEB07/yzoC1WW4qsLyvAKoKNJo7q/Y1ax1c6KDan3 SadAgM8J0G5pCliaI5Ff0bk++EaGedBM7kxht+61YHqReFiz5KnHmU1CmTNdxrDn ZUEcQUyMdn/+Rr571j/b68iAt9TukMBrhKDon2C4geQdNFFdiPKXsPaP6TCqx+qX MiBUu66wlnFZMNYFMAQzGFXC5nIkskrCSr1nHWrneZ9pqt0dvxTPCi/jduwqunu4 rKKro9Y3G4u2AcjgV0K0ygLBGMeS3pa1UzqSw0abKAUr4MDXmotMACzV3dd9rsiP N3iABoGYaLAxNiu6zwy6 =UNA8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UTjKcilERHWBCdCp--