On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 08:46:30AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> Hello Uwe,
>
> > From: Uwe Kleine-Konig, Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:48 PM
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
> > > index ba70e83..4987c12 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
> > > @@ -316,18 +316,16 @@ static int rcar_pwm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > static int rcar_pwm_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct pwm_device *pwm = rcar_pwm_dev_to_pwm_dev(dev);
> > > + struct pwm_state state;
> > >
> > > if (!test_bit(PWMF_REQUESTED, &pwm->flags))
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > >
> > > - rcar_pwm_config(pwm->chip, pwm, pwm->state.duty_cycle,
> > > - pwm->state.period);
> > > - if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
> > > - rcar_pwm_enable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> > > + pwm_get_state(pwm, &state);
> > >
> > > - return 0;
> > > + return rcar_pwm_apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> > > }
> >
> > Orthogonal to this patch I wonder what the intended behaviour for a pwm
> > is on suspend. Should it stop oscilating unconditionally? Or should it
> > only stop if the consumer stops it as part of its own suspend callback?
>
> I think the second one is better.
I agree. @Thierry: Do you agree, too? Then we should document that.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
