Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:51:40 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To:     Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Cc:     linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com>,
        Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] pwm: make it possible to apply pwm changes in
 atomic context
Message-ID: <ZSkvTKr42sUZImiM@orome.fritz.box>
References: <cover.1697193646.git.sean@mess.org>
 <9c0f1616fca5b218336b9321bfefe7abb7e1749f.1697193646.git.sean@mess.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5BfBngWXHg8w0i9V"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9c0f1616fca5b218336b9321bfefe7abb7e1749f.1697193646.git.sean@mess.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Precedence: bulk


--5BfBngWXHg8w0i9V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:46:14AM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> index d2f9f690a9c1..93f166ab03c1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> @@ -267,6 +267,7 @@ struct pwm_capture {
>   * @get_state: get the current PWM state. This function is only
>   *	       called once per PWM device when the PWM chip is
>   *	       registered.
> + * @atomic: can the driver execute pwm_apply_state in atomic context
>   * @owner: helps prevent removal of modules exporting active PWMs
>   */
>  struct pwm_ops {
> @@ -278,6 +279,7 @@ struct pwm_ops {
>  		     const struct pwm_state *state);
>  	int (*get_state)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  			 struct pwm_state *state);
> +	bool atomic;
>  	struct module *owner;
>  };

As I mentioned earlier, this really belongs in struct pwm_chip rather
than struct pwm_ops. I know that Uwe said this is unlikely to happen,
and that may be true, but at the same time it's not like I'm asking
much. Whether you put this in struct pwm_ops or struct pwm_chip is
about the same amount of code, and putting it into pwm_chip is much
more flexible, so it's really a no-brainer.

Thierry

--5BfBngWXHg8w0i9V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=5c8a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5BfBngWXHg8w0i9V--