[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGngYiWd0u=+DPhvK+8v9FT8Y1Evn1brWRheMNDXWFVVL-wNFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:05:14 -0500
From: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
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
Hi Clemens,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:31 AM Clemens Gruber
<clemens.gruber@...ruber.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, so you suggest we extend our get_state logic to deal with cases
> like the following:
Kind of. We can't control how other actors (bootloaders etc) program the
chip. As far as I know, there are many, many different register settings that
result in the same physical chip outputs. So if .probe() wants to preserve the
existing chip settings, .get_state() has to be able to deal with every possible
setting. Even invalid ones.
In addition, .apply() cannot make any assumptions as to which bits are
already set/cleared on the chip. Including preserved, invalid settings.
This might get quite complex.
However if we reset the chip in .probe() to a known state (a normalized state,
in the mathematical sense), then both .get_state() and .apply() become
much simpler. because they only need to deal with known, normalized states.
In short, it's a tradeoff between code complexity, and user friendliness/
features.
Sven
Powered by blists - more mailing lists