On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 01:46:06PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 06:09:43PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Without this change it can happen that if changing the polarity succeeded
> > but changing duty_cycle and period failed pwm->state contains a mixture
> > between the old and the requested state.
> > 
> > So remember the initial state before starting to modify the configuration
> > and restore it when one of the required callback fails.
> > 
> > Compared to the previous implementation .disable() (if necessary) is called
> > earlier to prevent a glitch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> > Hello,
> > 
> > just a small optimisation: At the end of pwm_apply_legacy()
> > state->enabled is known to be true, so simplify
> > 
> > 	if (state->enabled && !pwm->state.enabled) {
> > 
> > to
> > 	if (!pwm->state.enabled) {
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Uwe
> > 
> >  drivers/pwm/core.c | 139 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >  1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
> 
> Applied, thanks. I made a few tiny changes such as dropping the apply
> function pointer, which didn't seem very useful.

I just checked what you did and I can live with your changes. However I
think you should point out in the commit log what you actually changed.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |