Hello Thierry, On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 02:18:07PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:33:19PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:43:44PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > This fixes disabling the LED on i.MX28. The PWM hardware delays using > > > the newly set pwm-config until the beginning of a new period. It's very > > > likely that pwm_disable is called before the current period ends. In > > > case the LED was on brightness=max before the LED stays on because in > > > the disabled PWM block the period never ends. > > > > > > Also only call pwm_enable only once in the probe call back and the > > > matching pwm_disable in .remove(). Moreover the pwm is explicitly > > > initialized to off. > > > > While I do understand the reasoning behind this, if this is really the > > behaviour that we need then there's no use in having pwm_enable() and > > pwm_disable() at all. They can just be folded into pwm_get() and > > pwm_put(), respectively. > So after the first pwm_get the pwm starts with an unspecified duty > cycle? That's not that nice, is it? How can we come forward here? After all it's a real bug being fixed. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
