lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pwm: Rename pwm_get_state() to better reflect its semantic
Hello Thierry,

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:16:31PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 09:30:36AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Given that lowlevel drivers usually cannot implement exactly what a
> > consumer requests with pwm_apply_state() there is some rounding involved.
> >
> > pwm_get_state() traditionally returned the setting that was requested most
> > recently by the consumer (opposed to what was actually implemented in
> > hardware in reply to the last request). To make this semantic obvious
> > rename the function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> > Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst | 6 +++-
> > drivers/clk/clk-pwm.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 4 +--
> > drivers/input/misc/da7280.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/input/misc/pwm-beeper.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/input/misc/pwm-vibra.c | 4 +--
> > drivers/pwm/core.c | 4 +--
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c | 4 +--
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/pwm/sysfs.c | 18 ++++++------
> > drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 4 +--
> > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 10 +++----
> > include/linux/pwm.h | 34 ++++++++++++++--------
> > 17 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> Honestly, I don't think this is worth the churn. If you think people
> will easily get confused by this then a better solution might be to more
> explicitly document the pwm_get_state() function to say exactly what it
> returns.

I'm not so optimistic that people become aware of the semantic just
because there is documentation describing it and I strongly believe that
a good name for functions is more important than accurate documentation.

If you don't agree, what do you think about the updated wording in
Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst?

> But there's no need to make life difficult for everyone by
> renaming this to something as cumbersome as this.

I don't expect any merge conflicts (and if still a problem occurs
resolving should be trivial enough). So I obviously don't agree to your
weighing.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-06 15:45    [W:0.157 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site