Hello Andy, On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 11:47:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 04:21:37PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > In v1 Thierry had the concern: > > > > | That raises the question about what to do in these cases. If we return > > | an error, that could potentially throw off consumers. So perhaps the > > | closest would be to return a disabled PWM? Or perhaps it'd be up to the > > | consumer to provide some fallback configuration for invalidly configured > > | or unconfigured PWMs. > > > > .get_state() is only called in pwm_device_request on a pwm_state that a > > consumer might see. Before my series a consumer might have seen a > > partial modified pwm_state (because .get_state() might have modified > > .period, then stumbled and returned silently). The last patch ensures > > that this partial modification isn't given out to the consumer. Instead > > they now see the same as if .get_state wasn't implemented at all. > > I'm wondering why we didn't see a compiler warning about mistyped function > prototypes in some drivers. I don't understand where you expected a warning. Care to elaborate? > P.S. The series is good thing to do, thank you. It's already too late for an ack, the series is already in Thierry's tree. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
