Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1627608
| From | Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. |
| Date | 2017-04-20 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tymEV-2mn-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <txxsJ-4oB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <txDHQ-7VF-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tyeHo-60B-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tyl6b-1yM-61@gated-at.bofh.it> <tylSy-26m-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo |
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 06:07:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Taking above into consideration perhaps sleep is not quite good word > >> at all. By functional description it sounds like latency tolerance to > >> me. > > > > That's true, but the bit description in the chip datasheet is 'SLEEP'. > > (its real function is suspend/low power, but the chip designers called > > it 'SLEEP') > > > > Calling the bit/function something else is likely to confuse someone > > who's reading the driver in combination with the chip datasheet. > > Looking again into the patch I have noticed: > 1) word 'sleep' is used as a part of a function name; > 2) int sleep is used as binary value. > > Thus, I would suggest: int sleep -> bool enable (or alike). > > Would we agree on that? That sounds good to me. I guess it will have to be an incremental patch since this one has already been applied.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v4 0/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 15:00 +0200
[PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 17:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2017-04-18 11:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> - 2017-04-19 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 09:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> - 2017-04-20 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation. Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2017-04-20 18:20 +0200
csiph-web