[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210114180509.j5wcbxuwx4rzfys7@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:05:09 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>
Cc: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] pwm: pca9685: Support hardware readout
Hello Clemens,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:35:32PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > My position here is: A consumer should disable a PWM before calling
> > pwm_put. The driver should however not enforce this and so should not
> > modify the hardware state in .free().
> >
> > Also .probe should not change the PWM configuration.
>
> I see. This would also allow PWMs initialized in the bootloader (e.g.
> backlights) to stay on between the bootloader and Linux and avoid
> flickering.
>
> If no one objects, I would then no longer reset period and duty cycles
> in the driver (and for our projects, reset them in the bootloader code
> to avoid leaving PWMs on after a kernel panic and watchdog reset, etc.)
>
> And if there is no pre-known state of the registers, we actually need
> the .get_state function fully implemented.
This sounds right.
Thanks
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists