On 03/30, Boris Brezillon wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-pwm.c b/drivers/clk/clk-pwm.c
index ebcd738..49ec5b1 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk-pwm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk-pwm.c
@@ -28,15 +28,29 @@ static inline struct clk_pwm *to_clk_pwm(struct clk_hw *hw)
static int clk_pwm_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
{
struct clk_pwm *clk_pwm = to_clk_pwm(hw);
+ struct pwm_state pstate;
- return pwm_enable(clk_pwm->pwm);
+ pwm_get_state(clk_pwm->pwm, &pstate);
+ if (pstate.enabled)
+ return 0;
+
+ pstate.enabled = true;
+
+ return pwm_apply_state(clk_pwm->pwm, &pstate);
This doesn't seem atomic anymore if we're checking the state and
then not calling apply_state if it's already enabled. But I
assume this doesn't matter because we "own" the pwm here?
Otherwise I would think this would be unconditional apply state
and duplicates would be ignored in the pwm framework.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project