linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:06:22 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Bhuvanchandra DV <bhuvanchandra.dv@...adex.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lothar Wassmann <LW@...o-electronics.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX
 PWMv2

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 23:15:06 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Boris Brezillon
> <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:03:47 +0100
> > Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de> wrote:  
> >> >             /*
> >> >              * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already
> >> > enabled, and
> >> >              * flush the FIFO if the PWM was disabled and is
> >> > about to be
> >> >              * enabled.
> >> >              */  
> 
> >> >             if (cstate.enabled) {  
> 
> if (pwm_is_enabled()) ?
> 
> I think it's better to do whatever API provides to be less error prone.

Both pwm_is_enabled() and pwm_get_state()+struct pwm_state are part of
the PWM API, and I don't see how 'if (pwm_is_enabled())' is less error
prone than 'if (cstate.enabled)'.

This being said, I don't care much. It's mainly a matter of taste IMO,
so if others agree to switch to pwm_is_enabled() I'm fine with that.

> 
> >> >                     imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> >> >             } else {
> >> >                     ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> >> >                     if (ret)
> >> >                             return ret;  
> 
> >> if (state.enabled && !cstate.enabled)
> >>       clk_preapre_enable();  
> >
> > Yep, and that's correct.  
> 
> !pwm_is_enabled() ?
>