On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:07:57PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote: > > The interaction of the ALL_LED PWM channel with the other channels was > > not well-defined. As the ALL_LED feature does not seem very useful and > > it was making the code significantly more complex, simply remove it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer > > --- > > drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 115 ++++++-------------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks. By the way, shouldn't we add something like this: --- >8 --- diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/nxp,pca9685-pwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/nxp,pca9685-pwm.txt index f21b55c95738..49fff008af09 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/nxp,pca9685-pwm.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/nxp,pca9685-pwm.txt @@ -5,8 +5,6 @@ Required properties: - compatible: "nxp,pca9685-pwm" - #pwm-cells: Should be 2. See pwm.yaml in this directory for a description of the cells format. - The index 16 is the ALLCALL channel, that sets all PWM channels at the same - time. Optional properties: - invert (bool): boolean to enable inverted logic --- >8 --- To make sure we reflect this in the device tree bindings? It doesn't seem like anyone uses that channel (in fact, it doesn't seem like any device trees actually exist in-tree that use one of these chips), so it should be fine to drop that. Thierry