Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201216125320.5277-1-clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>
 <20201216125320.5277-2-clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com> <CAGngYiWkKZGkQ4TTTy8bQYvnGBK45V0A0JCe_+M5V+vuVU+zkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <X9uYqGboZg5DuEtf@workstation.tuxnet>
In-Reply-To: <X9uYqGboZg5DuEtf@workstation.tuxnet>
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:52:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGngYiUYOL6EF3VTGwcwTuN4EmE26ML3ye7689FTEpowjEcU2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] pwm: pca9685: Support hardware readout
To:     Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:43 PM Clemens Gruber
<clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com> wrote:
> >
> > Conclusion: .get_state() will always return "pwm disabled", so why do we
> > bother reading out the h/w?
>
> If there are no plans for the PWM core to call .get_state more often in
> the future, we could just read out the period and return 0 duty and
> disabled.

I'm not sure why we should even read out the period?
When a channel is disabled, the period is not externally visible,
therefore it's meaningless ?

As far as I can tell, we can use this for .get_state():
memset(&pwm->state, 0, sizeof(pwm_state));

>
> Thierry, Uwe, what's your take on this?
>
> > Of course, if we choose to leave the pwm enabled after .free(), then
> > .get_state() can even be left out! Do we want that? Genuine question, I do
> > not know the answer.
>
> I do not think we should leave it enabled after free. It is less
> complicated if we know that unrequested channels are not in use.
>

Good point, I agree with you.