[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 23:30:54 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Flavio Suligoi <f.suligoi@...m.it>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] pwm: core: Always require PWM flags to be provided
Hello Andy,
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:49:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> It makes little sense to make PWM flags optional since in case
> of multi-channel consumer the flags can be optional only for
> the last listed channel.
I think the same holds true for dt references.
> Thus always require PWM flags to be provided.
I'm not sure I want to follow that conclusion. Most consumers only need
a single PWM and then not providing flags is fine, isn't it? Or does
this change fix an error?
Best regards
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