On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:31:09AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 10:58:44AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > The practical upside here is that this only needs a single API call to > > program the hardware which (depending on the underlaying hardware) can > > be more effective and prevents glitches. > > > > Up to now the return value of the pwm functions was ignored. Fix this > > and propagate the error to the caller. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > New code looks OK but these changes reveal just how crazy the return codes > from this driver's update_status() methods are since now the new (PWM) error path is > structured completely differently to the existing (I2C) error path. Indeed, while working on the patch I noticed that sometimes a positive value is returned but failed to note that when I sent out the patch. > Are you OK to add a patch *before* this one to fix the existing code > paths before making the PWM changes? I didn't do that because I was unsure what is the right thing to do. Now that you confirmed the documentation I can add such a patch. Will add this to my todo list. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
