Re: RFC: don't let drivers issue pwm_disable after pwm_config(pwm, 0, period)

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2536 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:26:07PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Thierry,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 06:02:30PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 10:37:24PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:52:21AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:23:30PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 01:30:54PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > I don't see how you could make that work. In practically all cases a
> > > > > > pwm_disable() would have to be assumed to cause the pin level to become
> > > > > > undefined. That makes it pretty much useless.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Right, that's what I want. pwm_disable() should make no guarantees about
> > > > > the pin level. [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that this is simpler and clearer. However it also significantly
> > > > > > reduces the flexibility of the API, and I'm not sure that it is enough.
> > > > > > Again, yes, for many cases this is sufficient, but it doesn't fully
> > > > > > expose the capabilities of hardware.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can you show me a use case that isn't possible to express with the
> > > > > suggested change in semantic?
> > > > 
> > > > To get forward here the only missing points are:
> > > > 
> > > >  a) Your claim that this simplification looses expressive power.
> > > >  b) Actually convert the users (assuming a) can be resolved)
> > > > 
> > > > I cannot find a usecase that cannot be handled with the suggested change
> > > > in semantic. So can I lure you in explaining what setup you have in
> > > > mind?
> > > 
> > > I'd really like to get forward here, so you feedback would be very
> > > welcome. What is the use case you have in mind when writing "it also
> > > significantly reduces the flexibility of the API, and I'm not sure that
> > > it is enough"?
> > 
> > I'm a bit irritated that you don't continue to communicate here. On
> > August 9 I had the impression that we can discuss this topic to an end.
> > But as you stopped replying we unfortunately cannot :-|
> 
> Seeing you reply on other topics I wonder what is the problem here. Can
> you at least quickly confirm that you received my mails?

Confirming that I'm receiving your emails. Sorry, but I haven't found
the necessary time to look at the details here any closer to continue
the discussion in a meaningful way.

I will hopefully get around to it within the next couple of days.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]