[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <icnzqynjxkvbxz7wm6ibkpeqgnxsgijulasoh62arbq2oemdib@u2lphznhtmit>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 08:48:23 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael V. Volkmer" <rafael.v.volkmer@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] pwm: tiehrpwm: implement .get_state callback
Hello Rafael,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 05:39:19PM -0300, Rafael V. Volkmer wrote:
> ok, I’ll do that then and rework the series to adapt tiehrpwm
> directly to the waveform callbacks, dropping the legacy
> apply/get_state ones. I’ll try to get to this and have a new
> version ready sometime next week.
>
> Before I respin the whole series, would you mind having a quick
> look at patch 5/6 (the one handling already-running channels at probe)?
> If that direction looks fine to you, I can fold any comments into it
> and then send everything again as a single updated series.
Conceptually patch #5 is right. After a very quick glance I wonder if
+ if (enabled_ch[PWM_CHA] || enabled_ch[PWM_CHB]) {
+ ret = clk_enable(pc->tbclk);
is wrong and you need to clk_enable() twice if both enabled_ch[PWM_CHA]
and enabled_ch[PWM_CHB] are true.
Can you please use `git send-email --no-chain-reply-to` for future
submissions? While this sometimes results in having the patches not in
their apply order, it reduces the nesting which helps me and also it the
more common setting.
Best regards
Uwe
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists