[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >> A) The software state here is the period and flags (AKA "inverted), >> right? It does seem possible that you could apply the period and >> flags while keeping the calculated bootup duty cycle percentage

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry, On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >> pwm_get_period(): get the period of the PWM; if the PWM has not yet >> been configured by software this gets the default period (possibly >> specified by the device tree). > > No. I think we'll need a

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry, On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >> This is because only some drivers would be able to read the hardware >> state? I'm not sure how we can get away from that. In all proposals >> we've talked about (including what you propose below,

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry, On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >> > Furthermore it's out of the question that changes to the API will be >> > required. That's precisely the reason why the atomic PWM proposal came >> > about. It's an attempt to solve the shortcomings of

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry, On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Thierry, > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Thierry Reding > wrote: >>> pwm_get_period(): get the period of the PWM; if the PWM has not yet >>> been configured by software this

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry, On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Thierry > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Thierry Reding > wrote: >>> A) The software state here is the period and flags (AKA "inverted), >>> right? It does seem possible that you

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Mark, On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:15:09AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> Note that historically I remember that Linus Torvalds has stated that >> there is no stable API within the Linux kernel and that forcing the >>

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry and Boris, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:12:12PM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote: >> Hi Thierry, >> >> Am Montag, 21. September 2015, 11:33:17 schrieb Boris Brezillon: >> > Hello, >> > >> > This series adds

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Hi, On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > I really don't understand this design decision. I presume that the PWM > controlling this system-critical logic is driven by the SoC? So if the > regulator is system-critical, doesn't that make it a chicken

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry, On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > So just to summarize: > > * Add pwm_get_state(), pwm_apply_state(), pwm_get_args(). > pwm_get_state() initially returns 0 for duty cycle if driver doesn't > support readout. > > * Re-implement pwm_get_period()