[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190604144728.GY2781@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 17:47:28 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: fix pwm/gpio inter-operation
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 09:34:46AM -0400, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> Thank you for the review, Mika ! See comments below.
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 AM Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This approach will also prevent the request of the "all" pwm channel, if any
> > > other pwm channel is already in use. Is this correct behaviour?
> >
> > Sounds correct to me.
>
> Something that occurred to me right after I pressed the send button:
>
> This patch will prevent a pwm 'all channels' request if at least one
> of the pwm's is in use. But it will not guard against the opposite:
> after the 'all channels' pwm is requested, it will still allow requests
> for other pwms/gpios !
>
> This is identical to the old behaviour. But maybe this is an oversight
> and not a feature?
Most probably an oversight.
> Proposal:
> 1. prevent request of 'all channel' if any of the pwms/gpios are in use
> 2. prevent request of all other pwms/gpios if 'all channels' is in use
Makes sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists