Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update
From: Uwe Kleine-König <hidden>
Date: 2015-07-02 07:42:43
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-leds, linux-pwm, linux-tegra
From: Uwe Kleine-König <hidden>
Date: 2015-07-02 07:42:43
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-leds, linux-pwm, linux-tegra
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:17:00AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 02/07/15 10:03, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:quoted
Hello Boris, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:46AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:quoted
This series adds support for atomic PWM update, or ITO, the capability to update all the parameters of a PWM device (enabled/disabled, period, duty and polarity) in one go.on first reading the subject of your series I thought it was about asserting that the newly set config is active before the call to pwm_config (et al) returns. That's a problem I addressed a few times in the past. I wonder if it's only me or if a different wording should be used for "update all parameters with a single function call".In my vocabulary "blocking" means that the work is done before the function returns, and "atomic" means the work is done in one step.
blocking is IMHO something slightly different, maybe "synchronous" is a good term for "done when the call returns". For write(2) I'd say - blocking means to only return when the write request has reached the kernel, but not necessarily the medium. I.e. the caller doesn't need to care further; and - atomic means that the contents of two concurrent writers don't mix in the resulting file content; and - synchronous means that once write() returns the data is on the medium. So atomic seems to be fine to use here. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |