Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] pwm: Allow .get_state to fail

["Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1482 bytes --]

Hello Andy,

On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 11:47:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 04:21:37PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > In v1 Thierry had the concern:
> > 
> > | That raises the question about what to do in these cases. If we return
> > | an error, that could potentially throw off consumers. So perhaps the
> > | closest would be to return a disabled PWM? Or perhaps it'd be up to the
> > | consumer to provide some fallback configuration for invalidly configured
> > | or unconfigured PWMs.
> > 
> > .get_state() is only called in pwm_device_request on a pwm_state that a
> > consumer might see. Before my series a consumer might have seen a
> > partial modified pwm_state (because .get_state() might have modified
> > .period, then stumbled and returned silently). The last patch ensures
> > that this partial modification isn't given out to the consumer. Instead
> > they now see the same as if .get_state wasn't implemented at all.
> 
> I'm wondering why we didn't see a compiler warning about mistyped function
> prototypes in some drivers.

I don't understand where you expected a warning. Care to elaborate?

> P.S. The series is good thing to do, thank you.

It's already too late for an ack, the series is already in Thierry's
tree.

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]