Hi Uwe,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:29 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> this is the successor of my earlier patch "pwm: Ensure for legacy
> drivers that pwm->state stays consistent" that was applied shortly to
> next until Geert found a problem with it.
>
> I split the patch in three parts now: First the legacy handling is just
> moved to a separate function without any semantic change. Then a glitch
> is fixed, but without the regression I introduced initially. In the
> third and last patch the longstanding FIXME about breaking pwm->state if
> a callback fails is addressed.
>
> Uwe Kleine-König (3):
> pwm: Move legacy driver handling into a dedicated function
> pwm: Prevent a glitch for legacy drivers
> pwm: Restore initial state if a legacy callback fails
>
> drivers/pwm/core.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
Thanks, works fine on Armadillo 800 EVA!
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> base-commit: 6efb943b8616ec53a5e444193dccf1af9ad627b5
That's plain v5.13-rc1, which is probably not what Thierry is targeting?
The first patch applies with some fuzz on my local tree including
yesterday's pwm/for-next and a revert of the bad version.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
