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;
Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:40:14 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To:     Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@gmail.com>,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pwm: core: Support new usage_power setting in PWM
 state
Message-ID: <YL4vzvznTzqih0pA@orome.fritz.box>
References: <20210507131845.37605-1-clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>
 <20210507150317.bnluhqrqepde4xjm@pengutronix.de>
 <YJVhLrkeNXBp6M1p@workstation.tuxnet>
 <20210507231831.zmvyspcq7xhm25y4@pengutronix.de>
 <YLUK8GXHaBYyVe1R@workstation.tuxnet>
 <YLn3MZ+6HJM/UrRT@orome.fritz.box>
 <20210607060827.vxdihsfqtw3otyco@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xwy1/Qax+gOdkBIj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210607060827.vxdihsfqtw3otyco@pengutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.6 (98f8cb83) (2021-03-06)
Precedence: bulk


--xwy1/Qax+gOdkBIj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:08:27AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig wrote:
> Hello Thierry,
>=20
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:49:37AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > In the interest of making forward progress, I've applied this series.
>=20
> I proposed a different approach that in contrast to usage_power:
>=20
>  - is well defined
>    (so driver authors and consumers know what to provide or expect resp.);
>  - has good name people understand without reading documentation;
>  - fully covers the problem Clemens want to address;
>  - fully covers what the only implementing lowlevel driver does; and
>  - is easy to implement based on the patches in this series
>=20
> This is not what I call "forward progress". I take it personal that
> after I pointed out technical shortcomings with this patch set and even
> suggested a better concept, you didn't even made the effort to argue
> but instead simply went on applying the patches.

Forward progress doesn't always mean that everybody gets their way. And
this is nothing personal, so please don't take it that way.

I don't see where you pointed out technical shortcomings with this
patch, you merely pointed out that you don't like this solution and that
there might be a better way to implement it by expanding on the concepts
introduced in this patch series.

As I said, this is now no longer impacting ABI, so we can improve on
this further down the road if we choose to. However, I didn't see any
reason to postpone this any further. This is something that Clemens has
been working on for more than half a year and we've changed our minds
often enough. In my opinion this proposal is good enough.

Thierry

--xwy1/Qax+gOdkBIj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=NYrY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xwy1/Qax+gOdkBIj--