[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZR_hjjS1VMAPLYVI@orome.fritz.box>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 12:29:34 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@...rochip.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...s.st.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: make it possible to apply pwm changes in atomic
context
On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 11:40:29AM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> index d2f9f690a9c1..c94894ffa4c4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> @@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ struct pwm_ops {
> * @ops: callbacks for this PWM controller
> * @base: number of first PWM controlled by this chip
> * @npwm: number of PWMs controlled by this chip
> + * @can_sleep: can the driver sleep in pwm_apply_state
> * @of_xlate: request a PWM device given a device tree PWM specifier
> * @of_pwm_n_cells: number of cells expected in the device tree PWM specifier
> * @list: list node for internal use
> @@ -297,6 +298,7 @@ struct pwm_chip {
> const struct pwm_ops *ops;
> int base;
> unsigned int npwm;
> + bool can_sleep;
Can we please call this "might_sleep"?
>
> struct pwm_device * (*of_xlate)(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> const struct of_phandle_args *args);
> @@ -380,6 +382,18 @@ static inline void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> pwm_apply_state(pwm, &state);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * pwm_can_sleep() - can a pwm driver sleep in pwm_apply_state()
> + * @pwm: PWM device
> + *
> + * Returns: true if the driver may sleep, false if pwm_apply_state()
> + * can be called from atomic context.
> + */
> +static inline bool pwm_can_sleep(struct pwm_device *pwm)
And this one pwm_might_sleep()? I don't see why we need to deviate from
the nomenclature that the core introduced.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists