[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-fbdev
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] backlight: lm3630a: convert to atomic PWM API and check for errors
From:       Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig () pengutronix ! de>
Date:       2021-06-18 21:17:46
Message-ID: 20210618211746.2kuwm3hlrhefuczl () pengutronix ! de
[Download RAW message or body]


On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:31:09AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 10:58:44AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > The practical upside here is that this only needs a single API call to
> > program the hardware which (depending on the underlaying hardware) can
> > be more effective and prevents glitches.
> > 
> > Up to now the return value of the pwm functions was ignored. Fix this
> > and propagate the error to the caller.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> 
> New code looks OK but these changes reveal just how crazy the return codes
> from this driver's update_status() methods are since now the new (PWM) error path is
> structured completely differently to the existing (I2C) error path.

Indeed, while working on the patch I noticed that sometimes a positive
value is returned but failed to note that when I sent out the patch.

> Are you OK to add a patch *before* this one to fix the existing code
> paths before making the PWM changes?

I didn't do that because I was unsure what is the right thing to do. Now
that you confirmed the documentation I can add such a patch. Will add
this to my todo list.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]