On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:43 PM Clemens Gruber <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Conclusion: .get_state() will always return "pwm disabled", so why do we > > bother reading out the h/w? > > If there are no plans for the PWM core to call .get_state more often in > the future, we could just read out the period and return 0 duty and > disabled.
I'm not sure why we should even read out the period? When a channel is disabled, the period is not externally visible, therefore it's meaningless ? As far as I can tell, we can use this for .get_state(): memset(&pwm->state, 0, sizeof(pwm_state)); > > Thierry, Uwe, what's your take on this? > > > Of course, if we choose to leave the pwm enabled after .free(), then > > .get_state() can even be left out! Do we want that? Genuine question, I do > > not know the answer. > > I do not think we should leave it enabled after free. It is less > complicated if we know that unrequested channels are not in use. > Good point, I agree with you.
