From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: Oleksandr Suvorov <oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
Paul Barker <pbarker@konsulko.com>,
Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>,
Igor Opaniuk <igor.opaniuk@toradex.com>,
Philippe Schenker <philippe.schenker@toradex.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: pwm: add normal PWM polarity flag
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:20:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200318092047.25gjkx43jwfyywsl@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200317225656.GK2527@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Hello Laurent,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:56:56AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:32:27PM +0200, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
> > PWM can have a normal polarity and a reverted one. The reverted polarity
> > value is defined.
>
> I would squash this patch with 2/7, apart from that it looks fine.
> However, I also agree with Thierry that the PWM cell that contains this
> value is a bitmask, so once we get more flags it may get a bit awkward.
For me the usefulness of PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL increases with more bits
used. That's because if there are 5 things that can be set there and the
patch author mentions only the two that are non-zero, I as a reviewer
don't know if the author actually know and thought about the other
three. If however they spell out PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL it's quite sure
they want normal polarity.
> Will we have one macro for each flag that will evaluate to 0 to report
> that the flag isn't set ?
Yes. Given the above mentioned advantage this is cheap enough in my
eyes.
> Or should we define a single PWM_FLAG_NONE (or
> similarly named) macro ?
I like one macro for each bit field better for the above mentioned
reason.
> In retrospect, maybe PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED
> should have been named PWM_FLAG_POLARITY_INVERTED.
Seems to be subjective. I don't see much added semantic that justifies
the longer name.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-18 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20200317123231.2843297-1-oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com>
2020-03-17 12:32 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] pwm: rename the PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED enum Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 13:34 ` Paul Barker
2020-03-17 21:32 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-03-17 16:26 ` Claudiu.Beznea
2020-03-17 16:39 ` Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 17:40 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-17 21:00 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-03-18 22:59 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-19 6:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-03-19 16:37 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-19 17:30 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-03-19 11:40 ` Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-19 12:10 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-03-19 12:57 ` Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-19 16:44 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-18 11:47 ` Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 12:32 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] dt-bindings: pwm: document the PWM polarity flag Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 17:43 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-17 21:30 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-03-18 23:05 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-19 7:05 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-03-19 17:04 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-30 21:00 ` Rob Herring
2020-03-18 23:19 ` Thierry Reding
2020-03-17 22:58 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-03-17 12:32 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: pwm: add normal " Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 13:36 ` Paul Barker
2020-03-17 14:06 ` Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 21:36 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-03-17 22:56 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-03-18 9:20 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2020-03-17 12:32 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: pwm: add description of PWM polarity Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 23:01 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-03-18 11:37 ` Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-18 12:29 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-03-18 12:36 ` Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 12:32 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] pwm: replace polarity enum with macros Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-17 12:32 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] arm64: dts: pwm: replace polarity constant with macro Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-20 10:03 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-03-17 12:32 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] arm: " Oleksandr Suvorov
2020-03-20 10:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
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=20200318092047.25gjkx43jwfyywsl@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=igor.opaniuk@toradex.com \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com \
--cc=oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com \
--cc=pbarker@konsulko.com \
--cc=philippe.schenker@toradex.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/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).