On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:54:29PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:55:11PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > > Add the flag and corresponding documentation for PWM_USAGE_POWER. > > > > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt | 3 +++ > > > include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h | 1 + > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > Rob, what are your thoughts on this? I've been thinking about this some > > more and I'm having second thoughts about putting this into device tree > > because it doesn't actually describe a property of the PWM hardware but > > rather a use-case specific hint. It's a bit of a gray area because this > > is just part of the PWM specifier which already has use-case specific > > "configuration", such as the period and the polarity. This is something I'd prefer over making it part of the device tree API. I still don't think it's a good idea but when we keep it in-kernel we can at least easier modify it in the future. > > Perhaps a better place for this is within the PWM API? We could add the > > same information into struct pwm_state and then consumers that don't > > care about specifics of the signal (such as pwm-backlight) can set that > > flag when they request a state to be applied. > > I just want to note that in my opinion, this is not a flag that is > changed often, so is it really a good idea to require setting this > wherever PWM state is applied? Also, this can't be read-out in > .get_state. Not being able to read it out isn't a problem in my eyes. > Thierry: If this discussion carries on and a v10 is required: Could you > maybe merge the uncontroversial patches 1 to 3 of v9 separately and > maybe get those in 5.12 ? Patches 4 to 8 can probably wait for 5.13 and > have some time in linux-next. I'm ok in getting those into next now and than into the upcoming merge window. That won't make them part of 5.12 however, but 5.13-rc1. IMHO patches 7 and 8 can go in, too. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
