[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221128082441.wsqcpuxqk6cynako@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:24:41 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
"Wesley W. Terpstra" <wesley@...ive.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: sifive: Always let the first pwm_apply_state
succeed
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 06:41:06PM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 16:33, Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 01:45:43PM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> > > How about we merge this bug fix that can easily be backported first
> > > and then look at how it should be handled properly?
> >
> > I thought it wouldn't be that hard to do it right from the start,
> > but I admit it's harder than I expected to get right. My prototype looks
> > as follows:
>
> This works for me (modulo the two extra {'s). I'd still prefer merging
Yeah, didn't even try to compile it.
> the simpler version and then this on top for ease of backporting, but
> as long as the race is fixed I'm fine. Will you send a cleaned up
> version of this?
I'd let Thierry decide what he want here. Depending on his choice I can
clean up my suggestion (inclusive compile test) on the then relevant
state of the driver.
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