On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 02:31:18PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 04:16:17PM +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_cansleep(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. > > Sorry, I still don't agree with that _cansleep suffix. I think it's the > wrong terminology. Just because something can sleep doesn't mean that it > ever will. "Might sleep" is much more accurate because it says exactly > what might happen and indicates what we're guarding against. Sorry, I forgot about this in the last round. I've renamed it _might_sleep in v6 which I'll post shortly. Sean
