On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 02:34:17PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 11:46:22AM +0100, Sean Young wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:08:22AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > On 10/19/23 12:51, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:57:48PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > >> On 10/17/23 11:17, Sean Young wrote: > > > > I think it's very subjective if you consider this > > > > churn or not. > > > > > > I consider it churn because I don't think adding a postfix > > > for what is the default/expected behavior is a good idea > > > (with GPIOs not sleeping is the expected behavior). > > > > > > I agree that this is very subjective and very much goes > > > into the territory of bikeshedding. So please consider > > > the above my 2 cents on this and lets leave it at that. > > > > You have a valid point. Let's focus on having descriptive function names. > > For a couple of days I've been trying to resist the bikeshedding (esp. > given the changes to backlight are tiny) so I'll try to keep it as > brief as I can: > > 1. I dislike the do_it() and do_it_cansleep() pairing. It is > difficult to detect when a client driver calls do_it() by mistake. > In fact a latent bug of this nature can only be detected by runtime > testing with the small number of PWMs that do not support > configuration from an atomic context. > > In contrast do_it() and do_it_atomic()[*] means that although > incorrectly calling do_it() from an atomic context can be pretty > catastrophic it is also trivially detected (with any PWM driver) > simply by running with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP. > > No objections (beyond churn) to fully spelt out pairings such as > do_it_cansleep() and do_it_atomic()[*]! I must say I do like the look of this. Uwe, how do you feel about: pwm_apply_cansleep() and pwm_apply_atomic()? I know we've talked about pwm_apply_atomic in the past, however I think this this the best option I've seen so far. > 2. If there is an API rename can we make sure the patch contains no > other changes (e.g. don't introduce any new API in the same patch). > Seperating renames makes the patches easier to review! > It makes each one smaller and easier to review! Yes, this should have been separated out. Will fix for next version. Thanks, Sean
