Hello, On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 08:43:53AM +0100, Sean Young wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 12:52:00PM +0300, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote: > > On 2.10.23 г. 11:20 ч., Sean Young wrote: > > > Requires a copy of pwm_state in pwm_ir, not a huge difference (copy of 28 > > > bytes vs keeping it around). > > > > see my previous comment re struct var. Also, look at the overhead: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.6-rc3/source/include/linux/pwm.h#L349 - > > you call pwm_get_state() for every edge. > > That's the 28 bytes copy I was talking about. Note that pwm_get_state() also has (IMHO) confusing semantics. It gives you (most of the time) the state that was last pwm_state_apply()d and not the state the hardware is currently in. In my book keeping the pwm_state around is the nicer approach that often is also simpler ... > However keeping a pointer in struct pwm_ir is a good compromise and makes > the rest of the code cleaner. ... which seems to apply here, too. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
