Re: [PATCH 2/4] pwm: pca9685: remove ALL_LED PWM channel

Thierry Reding
2020-03-30T13:16:03Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1600 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:07:57PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> > The interaction of the ALL_LED PWM channel with the other channels was
> > not well-defined. As the ALL_LED feature does not seem very useful and
> > it was making the code significantly more complex, simply remove it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 115 ++++++--------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)
>
> Applied, thanks.

By the way, shouldn't we add something like this:

--- >8 ---
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/nxp,pca9685-pwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/nxp,pca9685-pwm.txt
index f21b55c95738..49fff008af09 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/nxp,pca9685-pwm.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/nxp,pca9685-pwm.txt
@@ -5,8 +5,6 @@ Required properties:
- compatible: "nxp,pca9685-pwm"
- #pwm-cells: Should be 2. See pwm.yaml in this directory for a description of
the cells format.
- The index 16 is the ALLCALL channel, that sets all PWM channels at the same
- time.

Optional properties:
- invert (bool): boolean to enable inverted logic
--- >8 ---

To make sure we reflect this in the device tree bindings? It doesn't
seem like anyone uses that channel (in fact, it doesn't seem like any
device trees actually exist in-tree that use one of these chips), so it
should be fine to drop that.

Thierry

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