Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:06:22 +0100 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2 |
| |
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 23:15:06 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Boris Brezillon > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:03:47 +0100 > > Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de> wrote: > >> > /* > >> > * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already > >> > enabled, and > >> > * flush the FIFO if the PWM was disabled and is > >> > about to be > >> > * enabled. > >> > */ > > >> > if (cstate.enabled) { > > if (pwm_is_enabled()) ? > > I think it's better to do whatever API provides to be less error prone.
Both pwm_is_enabled() and pwm_get_state()+struct pwm_state are part of the PWM API, and I don't see how 'if (pwm_is_enabled())' is less error prone than 'if (cstate.enabled)'.
This being said, I don't care much. It's mainly a matter of taste IMO, so if others agree to switch to pwm_is_enabled() I'm fine with that.
> > >> > imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm); > >> > } else { > >> > ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per); > >> > if (ret) > >> > return ret; > > >> if (state.enabled && !cstate.enabled) > >> clk_preapre_enable(); > > > > Yep, and that's correct. > > !pwm_is_enabled() ? >
| |