From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:42:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150702074243.GE11824@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5594E56C.3010908@ti.com>
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:17:00AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
>
> On 02/07/15 10:03, Uwe Kleine-K?nig 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-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@gmail.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@samsung.com>,
linux-leds@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:42:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150702074243.GE11824@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5594E56C.3010908@ti.com>
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/ |
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 07:42:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150702074243.GE11824@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5594E56C.3010908@ti.com>
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/ |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-02 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 204+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-01 8:21 [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 01/15] pwm: add the pwm_is_enabled() helper Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 02/15] pwm: fix pwm_get_period and pwm_get_duty_cycle prototypes Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 03/15] pwm: add pwm_get_polarity helper function Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 04/15] pwm: make use of pwm_get_xxx helpers where appropriate Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 05/15] pwm: introduce default period and polarity concepts Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 06/15] pwm: define a new pwm_state struct Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 07/15] pwm: move the enabled/disabled info to " Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 08/15] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 09/15] pwm: declare a default PWM state Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 10/15] pwm: add the PWM initial state retrieval infra Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 11/15] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 12/15] pwm: rockchip: add initial state retrieval Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 13/15] pwm: rockchip: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 14/15] regulator: pwm: implement ->enable(), ->disable() and ->is_enabled methods Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 15/15] regulator: pwm: properly initialize the ->state field Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 16/15] pwm: add informations about polarity, duty cycle and period to debugfs Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:50 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:50 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-03 8:43 ` [PATCH] " Heiko Stübner
2015-07-03 8:43 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-03 8:43 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150702074243.GE11824@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.