On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 03:43:56PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Thierry, > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:16:31PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 09:30:36AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Given that lowlevel drivers usually cannot implement exactly what a > > > consumer requests with pwm_apply_state() there is some rounding involved. > > > > > > pwm_get_state() traditionally returned the setting that was requested most > > > recently by the consumer (opposed to what was actually implemented in > > > hardware in reply to the last request). To make this semantic obvious > > > rename the function. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst | 6 +++- > > > drivers/clk/clk-pwm.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 4 +-- > > > drivers/input/misc/da7280.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/input/misc/pwm-beeper.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/input/misc/pwm-vibra.c | 4 +-- > > > drivers/pwm/core.c | 4 +-- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c | 4 +-- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/pwm/sysfs.c | 18 ++++++------ > > > drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 4 +-- > > > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 10 +++---- > > > include/linux/pwm.h | 34 ++++++++++++++-------- > > > 17 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) > > > > Honestly, I don't think this is worth the churn. If you think people > > will easily get confused by this then a better solution might be to more > > explicitly document the pwm_get_state() function to say exactly what it > > returns. > > I'm not so optimistic that people become aware of the semantic just > because there is documentation describing it and I strongly believe that > a good name for functions is more important than accurate documentation. > > If you don't agree, what do you think about the updated wording in > Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst? Yeah, that clarifies this a bit. I can apply that hunk of the patch separately. > > But there's no need to make life difficult for everyone by > > renaming this to something as cumbersome as this. > > I don't expect any merge conflicts (and if still a problem occurs > resolving should be trivial enough). So I obviously don't agree to your > weighing. I wasn't talking about merge conflicts but instead about the extra churn of changing all consumers and having to type all these extra characters for no benefit. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
