All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: lpc18xx-sct: don't reconfigure PWM in .request and .free
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:52:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181116065208.3920-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181114115025.GC2620@ulmo>

Regarding the .request case: The consumer might be interested in taking
over the configured state from the boot loader. So the initially
configured state should be retained.

For the free case the PWM consumer is responsible to disable the PWM
before calling pwm_release and there are three subcases to consider:

 a) The pwm is already off. Then there is no gain in disabling the PWM
    once more.
 b) The pwm is still running and there is a good reason for that. (Not
    sure this is a valid case, I cannot imagine such a good reason.)
    Then it is contra productive to disable the pwm.
 c) The pwm is still running because the consumer failed to disable the
    PWM. Then the consumer needs fixing and there is little incentive to
    paper over the problem in the backend driver.

This aligns the lpc18xx-sct driver to the other PWM drivers that also
don't reconfigure the hardware in .request and .free.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
index d7f5f7de030d..475918d9f543 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
@@ -296,7 +296,6 @@ static int lpc18xx_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 
 	set_bit(event, &lpc18xx_pwm->event_map);
 	lpc18xx_data->duty_event = event;
-	lpc18xx_pwm_config_duty(chip, pwm, pwm_get_duty_cycle(pwm));
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -306,8 +305,6 @@ static void lpc18xx_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 	struct lpc18xx_pwm_chip *lpc18xx_pwm = to_lpc18xx_pwm_chip(chip);
 	struct lpc18xx_pwm_data *lpc18xx_data = pwm_get_chip_data(pwm);
 
-	pwm_disable(pwm);
-	pwm_set_duty_cycle(pwm, 0);
 	clear_bit(lpc18xx_data->duty_event, &lpc18xx_pwm->event_map);
 }
 
-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: lpc18xx-sct: don't reconfigure PWM in .request and .free
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:52:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181116065208.3920-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181114115025.GC2620@ulmo>

Regarding the .request case: The consumer might be interested in taking
over the configured state from the boot loader. So the initially
configured state should be retained.

For the free case the PWM consumer is responsible to disable the PWM
before calling pwm_release and there are three subcases to consider:

 a) The pwm is already off. Then there is no gain in disabling the PWM
    once more.
 b) The pwm is still running and there is a good reason for that. (Not
    sure this is a valid case, I cannot imagine such a good reason.)
    Then it is contra productive to disable the pwm.
 c) The pwm is still running because the consumer failed to disable the
    PWM. Then the consumer needs fixing and there is little incentive to
    paper over the problem in the backend driver.

This aligns the lpc18xx-sct driver to the other PWM drivers that also
don't reconfigure the hardware in .request and .free.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
index d7f5f7de030d..475918d9f543 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
@@ -296,7 +296,6 @@ static int lpc18xx_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 
 	set_bit(event, &lpc18xx_pwm->event_map);
 	lpc18xx_data->duty_event = event;
-	lpc18xx_pwm_config_duty(chip, pwm, pwm_get_duty_cycle(pwm));
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -306,8 +305,6 @@ static void lpc18xx_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 	struct lpc18xx_pwm_chip *lpc18xx_pwm = to_lpc18xx_pwm_chip(chip);
 	struct lpc18xx_pwm_data *lpc18xx_data = pwm_get_chip_data(pwm);
 
-	pwm_disable(pwm);
-	pwm_set_duty_cycle(pwm, 0);
 	clear_bit(lpc18xx_data->duty_event, &lpc18xx_pwm->event_map);
 }
 
-- 
2.19.1

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-11-16  6:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-25 19:45 is pwm_put supposed to stop a PWM? Uwe Kleine-König
2018-10-29 11:48 ` Thierry Reding
2018-11-03 14:49   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-14  9:30     ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-14 11:50       ` Thierry Reding
2018-11-15  8:42         ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-15 15:43           ` Thierry Reding
2018-11-15 20:46             ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-16  6:52         ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2018-11-16  6:52           ` [PATCH] pwm: lpc18xx-sct: don't reconfigure PWM in .request and .free Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-16  7:02           ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-16  7:02             ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-16  9:22           ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2018-11-16  9:22             ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2018-11-16  9:48             ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-16  9:48               ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-16 10:01             ` Thierry Reding
2018-11-16 10:01               ` Thierry Reding
2018-11-16 10:45               ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-16 10:45                 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-16 10:05           ` Thierry Reding
2018-11-16 10:05             ` Thierry Reding
2018-11-19 19:55             ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-19 19:55               ` Uwe Kleine-König
2018-11-20 15:42               ` Thierry Reding
2018-11-20 15:42                 ` Thierry Reding

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=20181116065208.3920-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
    --to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=manabian@gmail.com \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    /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.