On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:58:32AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > 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> Thanks for testing. > > base-commit: 6efb943b8616ec53a5e444193dccf1af9ad627b5 > > That's plain v5.13-rc1, which is probably not what Thierry is targeting? his for-next branch is based on v5.13-rc1 and there are no changes in it touching drivers/pwm/core.c, so I expect this to be fine. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
