On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:17:00AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > On 02/07/15 10:03, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello Boris, > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:46AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >> This series adds support for atomic PWM update, or ITO, the capability > >> to update all the parameters of a PWM device (enabled/disabled, period, > >> duty and polarity) in one go. > > on first reading the subject of your series I thought it was about > > asserting that the newly set config is active before the call to > > pwm_config (et al) returns. That's a problem I addressed a few times in > > the past. I wonder if it's only me or if a different wording should be > > used for "update all parameters with a single function call". > > In my vocabulary "blocking" means that the work is done before the > function returns, and "atomic" means the work is done in one step. blocking is IMHO something slightly different, maybe "synchronous" is a good term for "done when the call returns". For write(2) I'd say - blocking means to only return when the write request has reached the kernel, but not necessarily the medium. I.e. the caller doesn't need to care further; and - atomic means that the contents of two concurrent writers don't mix in the resulting file content; and - synchronous means that once write() returns the data is on the medium. So atomic seems to be fine to use here. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
