| Message ID | 20210407080155.55004-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/3] pwm: lpss: Don't modify HW state in .remove callback | expand |
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:01:53AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > A consumer is expected to disable a PWM before calling pwm_put(). And if > they didn't there is hopefully a good reason (or the consumer needs > fixing). Also if disabling an enabled PWM was the right thing to do, > this should better be done in the framework instead of in each low level > driver. > > So drop the hardware modification from the .remove() callback. > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 6 ------ > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) Applied, thanks. Thierry
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:21:40PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:01:53AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > A consumer is expected to disable a PWM before calling pwm_put(). And if > > they didn't there is hopefully a good reason (or the consumer needs > > fixing). Also if disabling an enabled PWM was the right thing to do, > > this should better be done in the framework instead of in each low level > > driver. > > > > So drop the hardware modification from the .remove() callback. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > --- > > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 6 ------ > > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks. Great, but you didn't push yet. Is this still going through your own CI, or did you forget to push? Best regards Uwe
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 03:46:01PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:21:40PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:01:53AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > A consumer is expected to disable a PWM before calling pwm_put(). And if > > > they didn't there is hopefully a good reason (or the consumer needs > > > fixing). Also if disabling an enabled PWM was the right thing to do, > > > this should better be done in the framework instead of in each low level > > > driver. > > > > > > So drop the hardware modification from the .remove() callback. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > > --- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 6 ------ > > > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > > > Applied, thanks. > > Great, but you didn't push yet. Is this still going through your own CI, > or did you forget to push? Oh, I thought you took the devm_pwmchip_add patch. I withdraw my question. Best regards Uwe
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c index 939de93c157b..c81cb0ef984a 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c @@ -255,12 +255,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_lpss_probe); int pwm_lpss_remove(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm) { - int i; - - for (i = 0; i < lpwm->info->npwm; i++) { - if (pwm_is_enabled(&lpwm->chip.pwms[i])) - pm_runtime_put(lpwm->chip.dev); - } return pwmchip_remove(&lpwm->chip); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_lpss_remove);
A consumer is expected to disable a PWM before calling pwm_put(). And if they didn't there is hopefully a good reason (or the consumer needs fixing). Also if disabling an enabled PWM was the right thing to do, this should better be done in the framework instead of in each low level driver. So drop the hardware modification from the .remove() callback. Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> --- drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) base-commit: a38fd8748464831584a19438cbb3082b5a2dab15