Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:29:36 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. |
| |
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Andy !!
You're welcome.
> >> I would go with >> >> /* Wait for @sleep microseconds for the oscillator to be back up */ >> if (sleep) >> udelay(sleep); >> >> Otherwise int sleep is oddly here. >> >> Or >> >> bool sleep >> >> /* Wait 500us ... */ >> if (sleep) >> udelay(500); >> >>> +} > > I think you may be getting confused between: > - the chip's SLEEP bit (int sleep) > - the amount of time to delay after chip comes _out of_ sleep. > (always 500 us) > > If it's confusing for you, it might be confusing for others? > Perhaps change the parameter to 'bool sleep_bit' or 'bool do_sleep' > to make the distinction clearer?
Taking above into consideration perhaps sleep is not quite good word at all. By functional description it sounds like latency tolerance to me.
>> __maybe_unused and remove ugly #ifdef:ery. > > If this works on non- CONFIG_PM systems, I'm all for it ! > Grepping the drivers/ directory, I see that some drivers use > #ifdef CONFIG_PM, some use __maybe_unused for runtime_pm.
This approach kinda new that's why you see variety of approaches.
> Mika and Thierry, thoughts ?
At the end it's Thierry's call, so, I'm not insisting.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |