On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:57:06PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> @@ -330,14 +345,22 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  
>  	if (!state->enabled || duty < 1) {
>  		pca9685_pwm_set_duty(pca, pwm->hwpwm, 0);
> +		clear_bit(pwm->hwpwm, pca->prescaler_users);

Hmm, so if "my" channel runs at say

	.duty_cycle = 2539520 ns
	.period = 5079040 ns

and I call pwm_apply_state(mypwm, { .duty_cycle = 0, .period = 5079040,
enabled = true }); it might happen that another channel modifies the
period and I won't be able to return to the initial setting.

So I think it's sensible to only clear the user bit if the PWM is
disabled, but not if it is configured for duty_cycle = 0.

Does this make sense?

Best regards
Uwe

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