From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 10:17:00 +0300 Subject: [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update In-Reply-To: <20150702070343.GD11824@pengutronix.de> References: <1435738921-25027-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20150702070343.GD11824@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <5594E56C.3010908@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. Tomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 10:17:00 +0300 Message-ID: <5594E56C.3010908@ti.com> References: <1435738921-25027-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20150702070343.GD11824@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4465670702929940088==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150702070343.GD11824@pengutronix.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: =?windows-1252?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Boris Brezillon Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren , Jingoo Han , Mark Brown , Bryan Wu , Liam Girdwood , Doug Anderson , Thierry Reding , Richard Purdie , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, Jacek Anaszewski , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , Maxime Ripard , Lee Jones , Alexandre Courbot , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org --===============4465670702929940088== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="M9k8jUt8ru3AkjibFGQ7g8jL4uIcQugIR" --M9k8jUt8ru3AkjibFGQ7g8jL4uIcQugIR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02/07/15 10:03, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > Hello Boris, >=20 > 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. Tomi --M9k8jUt8ru3AkjibFGQ7g8jL4uIcQugIR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVlOVvAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71/8IP/2NdbFL57DIjU27RPVnL8MZ3 tVVRIpo9hnYjmcp0SGspsO6eh4PRk+tCSDmNEHInngaEYktxbQwk3+WwN164ltgV rCmTDr+hcmFWKfkLooJcG/CSMJb8EKux2qBY/CPLYo6mEMvEyffW4hBLfNePAGUW aHz+lBwzTk98yje2zzl1XjYqJYJQtKmhQxG0uNviq/LU+GJW/OrwQfNFFCh5hHLC jpCcRlGCHzOBzRja+yWDQXYMXa48dtTVtE0hITJYW4k2uJ/CQi3Mroq40MQz1Lkr +hPSucpp/uhB8IjWhFJljuzAnLQeMTVYJHXQ+R8Z1v6556arlo6Pe7qVuIWxf2JO YK170kSw6wI0Zyzn5QMyf98R6k1uHehc4ifmvqWt76XPA/n2vWIdAjS/gvgE0zrZ l4iIEItCcJ7UQU+ZjPOkHTS8rZNlS/rkGg3Tq9bfwmkniZtvp3jlj7z9YyRU7fC4 6nULgHfj4S6iwKOJq7FsydtfTGhCE/lN57DHHK6D9pK90zmHBMjcuuiCzYYMaxsA JcFIpZm+GMDkwqXUCUpGgA3tBwx2b0zM67RbRmeWSiUROPcTQg1MVgtlrHK0BBEE kcL8Y+QQSKjtczgXyxAciucv93Fyo4OEi4uI3oCxCoSK0X9fC03a1Kbw4KZ9DP0U Cs+3IcAuZRT2+HbXGC8e =vGlj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9k8jUt8ru3AkjibFGQ7g8jL4uIcQugIR-- --===============4465670702929940088== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel --===============4465670702929940088==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 07:17:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Message-Id: <5594E56C.3010908@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="M9k8jUt8ru3AkjibFGQ7g8jL4uIcQugIR" List-Id: References: <1435738921-25027-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20150702070343.GD11824@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <20150702070343.GD11824@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --M9k8jUt8ru3AkjibFGQ7g8jL4uIcQugIR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02/07/15 10:03, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > Hello Boris, >=20 > 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. Tomi --M9k8jUt8ru3AkjibFGQ7g8jL4uIcQugIR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVlOVvAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71/8IP/2NdbFL57DIjU27RPVnL8MZ3 tVVRIpo9hnYjmcp0SGspsO6eh4PRk+tCSDmNEHInngaEYktxbQwk3+WwN164ltgV rCmTDr+hcmFWKfkLooJcG/CSMJb8EKux2qBY/CPLYo6mEMvEyffW4hBLfNePAGUW aHz+lBwzTk98yje2zzl1XjYqJYJQtKmhQxG0uNviq/LU+GJW/OrwQfNFFCh5hHLC jpCcRlGCHzOBzRja+yWDQXYMXa48dtTVtE0hITJYW4k2uJ/CQi3Mroq40MQz1Lkr +hPSucpp/uhB8IjWhFJljuzAnLQeMTVYJHXQ+R8Z1v6556arlo6Pe7qVuIWxf2JO YK170kSw6wI0Zyzn5QMyf98R6k1uHehc4ifmvqWt76XPA/n2vWIdAjS/gvgE0zrZ l4iIEItCcJ7UQU+ZjPOkHTS8rZNlS/rkGg3Tq9bfwmkniZtvp3jlj7z9YyRU7fC4 6nULgHfj4S6iwKOJq7FsydtfTGhCE/lN57DHHK6D9pK90zmHBMjcuuiCzYYMaxsA JcFIpZm+GMDkwqXUCUpGgA3tBwx2b0zM67RbRmeWSiUROPcTQg1MVgtlrHK0BBEE kcL8Y+QQSKjtczgXyxAciucv93Fyo4OEi4uI3oCxCoSK0X9fC03a1Kbw4KZ9DP0U Cs+3IcAuZRT2+HbXGC8e =vGlj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9k8jUt8ru3AkjibFGQ7g8jL4uIcQugIR--