On 12/12/23 03:41, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:34:00AM +0000, Sean Young wrote:
In order to introduce a pwm api which can be used from atomic context,
we will need two functions for applying pwm changes:
int pwm_apply_might_sleep(struct pwm *, struct pwm_state *);
int pwm_apply_atomic(struct pwm *, struct pwm_state *);
This commit just deals with renaming pwm_apply_state(), a following
commit will introduce the pwm_apply_atomic() function.
Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> # for input
Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@xxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Several affected maintainers already acked, so I guess it's fine to take
this via the pwm tree. An Ack from the remaining maintainers would be
very welcome, an alternative would be to split the patch.
Missing Acks so far:
- Jean Delvare / Guenter Roeck for drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
- Javier Martinez Canillas for drivers/gpu/drm/solomon/ssd130x.c
- Liam Girdwood / Mark Brown for drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
- Helge Deller for drivers/video/fbdev/ssd1307fb.c
Best regards
Uwe
Personally I find the change unnecessary and pointless, which is why I
didn't ack it. Even if function names were deemed important enough, keeping
pwm_apply_state() for the time being and just adding pwm_apply_might_sleep()
as duplicate would have done it, all the changes could have gone in long
ago, and per-subsystem cleanup could have been orthogonal.
I refrained from commenting because it might be considered bike shedding,
but I don't want to ack something I deem unnecessary and pointless without
comment. But then don't want to keep arguing either, so
Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Guenter
