Hi,
On 7/29/20 10:12 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 09:55:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
On 7/28/20 8:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
...
Maybe I'm too picky, but I would go even further and split apply to two versions
static int pwm_lpss_apply_on_resume(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
const struct pwm_state *state)
{
struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
if (state->enabled)
return pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, !pwm_is_enabled(pwm));
if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
return 0;
}
and another one for !from_resume.
It is a bit picky :) But that is actually not a bad idea, although I would write
it like this for more symmetry with the normal (not on_resume) apply version,
while at it I also renamed the function:
/*
* This is a mirror of pwm_lpss_apply() without pm_runtime reference handling
* for restoring the PWM state on resume.
*/
static int pwm_lpss_restore_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
const struct pwm_state *state)
{
struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
int ret = 0;
if (state->enabled)
ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, !pwm_is_enabled(pwm));
else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
return ret;
}
Would that work for you?
Yes.
Ok, I've added the suggested/discussed helper in my personal tree. Is it ok
if I add your Reviewed-by with that change in place. This is the last unreviewed
bit, so I would rather not respin the series just for this (there will be one
more respin when I rebase it on 5.9-rc1).
If you want to check out what the patch looks like now, the new version from
my personal tree is here:
https://github.com/jwrdegoede/linux-sunxi/commit/e4869830d88bb8cb8251718e0086ac189abc0f56
Regards,
Hans
