On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:18:02PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:19:45PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:47:27PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:10:59AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
A previous change in the pwm core (namely 01ccf903edd6 ("pwm: Let pwm_get_state() return the last implemented state")) changed the semantic of pwm_get_state() and disclosed an (as it seems) common problem in lowlevel PWM drivers. By not relying on the period and duty cycle being retrievable from a disabled PWM this type of problem is worked around.
Apart from this issue only calling the pwm_get_state/pwm_apply_state combo once is also more effective.
I'm only interested in the second paragraph here.
There seems to be a reasonable consensus that the i.MX27 and cros-ec PWM drivers should be fixed for the benefit of other PWM clients. So we make this change because it makes the pwm-bl better... not to work around bugs ;-).
That's fine, still I think it's fair to explain the motivation of creating this patch.
Maybe.
Whether this patch is a workaround or simply an improvement to pwm-bl does need to be clear since it affects whether Lee steers it towards v5.4-rcX or linux-next .
Given that there will be a a fix in the pwm subsystem I'd say linux-next sounds right.
Best regards Uwe