From: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
"Matthias Schiffer" <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pwm: pca9685: remove unused duty_cycle struct element
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 18:10:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200330161023.GB777@workstation.tuxnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200330160238.GD2817345@ulmo>
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:18:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:09 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 02:52:26PM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> > > > duty_cycle was only set, never read.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 4 ----
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Applied, thanks.
> >
> > I'm not sure this patch is correct.
>
> What makes you say that? If you look at the code, the driver sets this
> field to either 0 or some duty cycle value but ends up never using it.
> Why would it be wrong to remove that code?
>
> > We already have broken GPIO in this driver. Do we need more breakage?
>
> My understanding is that nobody was able to pinpoint exactly when this
> regressed, or if this only worked by accident to begin with. It sounds
> like Clemens has a way of testing this driver, so perhaps we can solve
> that GPIO issue while we're at it.
>
> The last discussion on this seems to have been around the time when you
> posted a fix for it:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1156012/
>
> But then Sven had concerns that that also wasn't guaranteed to work:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/2/73
>
> So I think we could either apply your patch to restore the old behaviour
> which I assume you tested, so at least it seems to work in practice,
> even if there's still a potential race that Sven pointed out in the
> above link.
>
> I'd prefer something alternative because it's obviously confusing and
> completely undocumented. Mika had already proposed something that's a
> little bit better, though still somewhat confusing.
>
> Oh... actually reading further through those threads there seems to be a
> patch from Sven that was reviewed by Mika but then nothing happened:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/4/1039
>
> with the corresponding patchwork URL:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1110083/
>
> Andy, Clemens, do you have a way of testing the GPIO functionality of
> this driver? If so, it'd be great if you could check the above patch
> from Sven to fix PWM/GPIO interop.
Yes. I'll have a look and report back in a few days.
Clemens
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-30 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-26 13:52 [PATCH 1/4] pwm: pca9685: remove unused duty_cycle struct element Matthias Schiffer
2020-02-26 13:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] pwm: pca9685: remove ALL_LED PWM channel Matthias Schiffer
2020-03-30 13:07 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-30 13:15 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-30 13:19 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-30 15:38 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-30 13:34 ` Clemens Gruber
2020-03-30 15:40 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-30 15:43 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-30 16:07 ` Clemens Gruber
2020-03-31 12:09 ` (EXT) " Matthias Schiffer
2020-03-31 13:14 ` Clemens Gruber
2020-02-26 13:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] pwm: pca9685: initialize all LED registers during probe Matthias Schiffer
2020-02-26 15:00 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-02-26 16:13 ` (EXT) " Matthias Schiffer
2020-03-30 13:07 ` Thierry Reding
2020-02-26 13:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] pwm: pca9685: migrate config/enable/disable to apply Matthias Schiffer
2020-02-26 15:05 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-02-26 15:10 ` [PATCH 1/4] pwm: pca9685: remove unused duty_cycle struct element Uwe Kleine-König
2020-02-26 17:03 ` (EXT) " Matthias Schiffer
2020-02-26 19:21 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-02-28 13:26 ` (EXT) " Matthias Schiffer
2020-03-30 15:12 ` Clemens Gruber
2020-04-03 23:50 ` Sven Van Asbroeck
2020-04-04 17:35 ` Clemens Gruber
2020-04-04 20:17 ` Sven Van Asbroeck
2020-04-06 9:51 ` Thierry Reding
2020-04-07 13:00 ` (EXT) " Matthias Schiffer
2020-04-09 11:42 ` Sven Van Asbroeck
2020-04-03 23:47 ` Sven Van Asbroeck
2020-04-07 14:46 ` (EXT) " Matthias Schiffer
2020-04-08 8:00 ` Matthias Schiffer
2020-03-30 13:07 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-30 13:18 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-30 16:02 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-30 16:10 ` Clemens Gruber [this message]
2020-04-01 16:36 ` Clemens Gruber
2020-04-01 17:45 ` Thierry Reding
2020-04-02 7:10 ` (EXT) " Matthias Schiffer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200330161023.GB777@workstation.tuxnet \
--to=clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).