All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: "Maíra Canal" <maira.canal@usp.br>,
	lkp@intel.com, mchehab@kernel.org, thierry.reding@gmail.com,
	lee.jones@linaro.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	kbuild-all@lists.01.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] media: rc: pwm-ir-tx: Switch to atomic PWM API
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:54:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211029115412.GA32383@gofer.mess.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211029110602.uugnbm5vtfpghiwh@pengutronix.de>

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 01:06:02PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 08:16:08AM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
> > This means with your changes, if the carrier and duty cycle are both set
> > for each transmission, then we're doing more work. If only the carrier
> > is set for each transmission, then there is no net gain/loss (I think),
> > but the code size has increased.
> 
> OK, then I discard my patch.
> 
> While reading that I wondered if it makes sense to have a callback that
> sets both carrier and duty cycle and then remove the other two.

There are separate lirc ioctls to set carrier and duty cycle, that's why
there are separate callbacks.


Sean

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] media: rc: pwm-ir-tx: Switch to atomic PWM API
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:54:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211029115412.GA32383@gofer.mess.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211029110602.uugnbm5vtfpghiwh@pengutronix.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 697 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 01:06:02PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 08:16:08AM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
> > This means with your changes, if the carrier and duty cycle are both set
> > for each transmission, then we're doing more work. If only the carrier
> > is set for each transmission, then there is no net gain/loss (I think),
> > but the code size has increased.
> 
> OK, then I discard my patch.
> 
> While reading that I wondered if it makes sense to have a callback that
> sets both carrier and duty cycle and then remove the other two.

There are separate lirc ioctls to set carrier and duty cycle, that's why
there are separate callbacks.


Sean

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-29 11:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-27 15:34 [PATCH v4] media: rc: pwm-ir-tx: Switch to atomic PWM API Maíra Canal
2021-10-27 15:34 ` Maíra Canal
2021-10-28  6:45 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-28  6:45   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-28  9:14   ` Sean Young
2021-10-28  9:14     ` Sean Young
2021-10-28 11:15     ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-28 11:15       ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-28 12:26       ` Sean Young
2021-10-28 12:26         ` Sean Young
2021-10-28 18:05         ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-28 18:05           ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-29  7:16           ` Sean Young
2021-10-29  7:16             ` Sean Young
2021-10-29 11:06             ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-29 11:06               ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-29 11:54               ` Sean Young [this message]
2021-10-29 11:54                 ` Sean Young
2021-10-29 12:08                 ` Maíra Canal
2021-10-29 12:08                   ` Maíra Canal
2021-10-29 15:18                   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-29 15:18                     ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-30  9:21                   ` Sean Young
2021-10-30  9:21                     ` Sean Young
2021-10-31 10:39       ` Sean Young
2021-10-31 17:40         ` Uwe Kleine-König

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=20211029115412.GA32383@gofer.mess.org \
    --to=sean@mess.org \
    --cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=maira.canal@usp.br \
    --cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
    --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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.