Hello,

during review of my previous pwm-ab8500 patch I learned that there is a
(somewhat) publically available reference manual. Reading in it showed
that .apply() is still more broken that I assumed by just reading the
code.

This series first fixes .apply() to not be off by a factor of ~3000 and
then adds a .get_state() callback.

Note this is only compile tested as I don't have the hardware.
Also note this breaks all consumers that relied on the previously broken
behaviour.

Uwe Kleine-König (2):
  pwm: ab8500: Fix calculation of duty and period
  pwm: ab8500: Implement .get_state()

 drivers/pwm/pwm-ab8500.c | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 103 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

base-commit: 1b929c02afd37871d5afb9d498426f83432e71c2
-- 
2.39.0

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:48:15 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> during review of my previous pwm-ab8500 patch I learned that there is a
> (somewhat) publically available reference manual. Reading in it showed
> that .apply() is still more broken that I assumed by just reading the
> code.
> 
> This series first fixes .apply() to not be off by a factor of ~3000 and
> then adds a .get_state() callback.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/2] pwm: ab8500: Fix calculation of duty and period
      commit: 486dd4e846814016443abfcbfee0b8b3f3b35330
[2/2] pwm: ab8500: Implement .get_state()
      commit: 327437884e9a752ccbf759cbab641439ca708f5b

Best regards,
-- 
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>

Hi Uwe,

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 4:48 PM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> during review of my previous pwm-ab8500 patch I learned that there is a
> (somewhat) publically available reference manual. Reading in it showed
> that .apply() is still more broken that I assumed by just reading the
> code.
>
> This series first fixes .apply() to not be off by a factor of ~3000 and
> then adds a .get_state() callback.
>
> Note this is only compile tested as I don't have the hardware.
> Also note this breaks all consumers that relied on the previously broken
> behaviour.

I looked over the patch and I can't find anything to comment on
it just seems well researched and correct so:
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij