On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:58:32AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Uwe,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:29 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > this is the successor of my earlier patch "pwm: Ensure for legacy
> > drivers that pwm->state stays consistent" that was applied shortly to
> > next until Geert found a problem with it.
> >
> > I split the patch in three parts now: First the legacy handling is just
> > moved to a separate function without any semantic change. Then a glitch
> > is fixed, but without the regression I introduced initially. In the
> > third and last patch the longstanding FIXME about breaking pwm->state if
> > a callback fails is addressed.
> >
> > Uwe Kleine-König (3):
> >   pwm: Move legacy driver handling into a dedicated function
> >   pwm: Prevent a glitch for legacy drivers
> >   pwm: Restore initial state if a legacy callback fails
> >
> >  drivers/pwm/core.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
> 
> Thanks, works fine on Armadillo 800 EVA!
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>

Thanks for testing.

> > base-commit: 6efb943b8616ec53a5e444193dccf1af9ad627b5
> 
> That's plain v5.13-rc1, which is probably not what Thierry is targeting?

his for-next branch is based on v5.13-rc1 and there are no changes in it
touching drivers/pwm/core.c, so I expect this to be fine.
 
Best regards
Uwe

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