Hi Uwe,

On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:04:06PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

Hello Dmitry,

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 08:02:33AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 11:06:50AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 07:49:22AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

quoted

I had something like that at first, but didn't like it. With that
approach you have two places that have to know how to set the PWM's
duty_cycle. Also I think the control flow is more complicated.

I considered renaming max77693_haptic_enable() to something that better
matches what it does in my variant, but max77693_haptic_configure() was
already taken.

But that might all be subjective? If you like your version better,
that's fine, it still gets rid of pwm_config(), pwm_enable() and
pwm_apply_args() which is my main objective.

Yes, I agree that it is subjective. I know that you do not quite like
the version I posted, still will you be OK if it is attributed to you?

Yes, feel free to apply it as you suggested.

As of today's next that didn't happen. Do you have this patch still on
your radar?

My bad, I lost track of it when I reshuffled my queue. 

This is the last driver making use of pwm_config(), it would be great to
get rid of that.

The patch is in the pull request I just sent to Linus, hope this
unblocks you.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry