Hi, On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 7:27 AM Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 8:37 AM Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The pwm-fsl-ftm driver is one of only three PWM drivers which updates > > > the state for the caller of pwm_apply_state(). This might have > > > surprising results if the caller reuses the values expecting them to > > > still represent the same state. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c | 4 ---- > > > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > > > Presumably this patch could break something since the pwm-fsl-ftm > > driver doesn't appear to implement the get_state() function. ...or > > did I miss it? > > I don't expect breakage. We have more than 50 pwm drivers and only three > of them made use of adapting the passed state. So unless you do > something special with the PWM (i.e. more than backlight, LED or fan > control) I don't think a consumer might care. But it might well be that > I miss something so feel free to prove me wrong. I don't have this hardware so I can't prove you wrong. ...but presumably someone added the code to return the state on purpose? Maybe you could implement get_state() for this driver in your series? -Doug _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
