From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751943AbdATKCz (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2017 05:02:55 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:43229 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751598AbdATKCv (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2017 05:02:51 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,258,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="811195800" Message-ID: <1484906298.2133.264.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pwm: pca9685: fix prescaler initialization From: Andy Shevchenko To: Thierry Reding , Clemens Gruber Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Florian Vaussard , Mika Westerberg Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:58:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170120063907.GA4894@ulmo.ba.sec> References: <20161213155251.28684-2-clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com> <20170118105735.GM18989@ulmo.ba.sec> <1484737764.2133.193.camel@linux.intel.com> <20170118135325.GA2498@archie.localdomain> <1484748118.2133.206.camel@linux.intel.com> <20170118142533.GA17640@archie.localdomain> <1484829279.2133.236.camel@linux.intel.com> <20170119144925.GA1660@archie.localdomain> <1484842208.2133.245.camel@linux.intel.com> <20170119165210.GA2139@archie.localdomain> <20170120063907.GA4894@ulmo.ba.sec> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.3-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 07:39 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:52:10PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 06:10:08PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > Combining with your proposal I would see the best approach is to > > > set > > > pca->period_ns accordingly to current prescaler value if you want > > > to. > > I'll send v2 of patch 2/2 with aforementioned changes in the next > > days. > > Like I said above, I think atomic API conversion wouldn't be very > difficult for this driver and it has the added advantage of giving you > the proper infrastructure to do this rather than having to duplicate > it in the driver. > > That would be my preference, but I'm willing to take v2 of 2/2 as well > if it ends up being really nice and compact. =) I think we may split to this fix and separate change to move to atomic API. Does it sound reasonable? P.S. Can you comment further pwm-lpss changes Mika and I did? -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy