On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 01:32:55PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:22:46 +0200
> Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > PWM devices are not protected against concurrent
Hi Thierry,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:22:46 +0200
Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > PWM devices are not protected against concurrent accesses. The lock in
> > pwm_device might let PWM users think it is, but it's
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> PWM devices are not protected against concurrent accesses. The lock in
> pwm_device might let PWM users think it is, but it's actually only
> protecting the enabled state.
>
> Removing this lock should be fine as long as all PWM
PWM devices are not protected against concurrent accesses. The lock in
pwm_device might let PWM users think it is, but it's actually only
protecting the enabled state.
Removing this lock should be fine as long as all PWM users are aware that
accesses to the PWM device have to be serialized, which