[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200523201730.o7y7pent4hjtgia3@pengutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 22:17:30 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] pwm: pca9685: Remove set but not used variable
'pwm'
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 11:11:11AM -0400, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> I was able to test the patch [1] exclusion mechanism without access to actual
> hardware - by giving it a dummy regmap. See patch below.
>
> Test cases (all via sysfs):
> 1. verify requested pwm cannot be requested as gpio
> 2. verify requested gpio cannot be requested as pwm
> 3. verify pwm "all LEDs" cannot be used if pwms/gpios in use
> 4. verify pwms/gpios cannot be requested if pwm "all LEDs" in use
>
> All test cases ok.
> Obviously, I could not test multi-threaded correctness.
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/4/1039
Is this patch still relevant? A patch similar to YueHaibing's one was
merged in the meantime but I guess the underlying problem is still
relevant. Sven, do you care enough to recheck and create a patch on top
of a more recent tree?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists