[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGngYiXHaDxbz9jpc=P4kT6n2yKHRmFznuse3beWXi35JCK8Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:12:23 -0400
From: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation.
> Taking above into consideration perhaps sleep is not quite good word
> at all. By functional description it sounds like latency tolerance to
> me.
That's true, but the bit description in the chip datasheet is 'SLEEP'.
(its real function is suspend/low power, but the chip designers called
it 'SLEEP')
Calling the bit/function something else is likely to confuse someone
who's reading the driver in combination with the chip datasheet.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists