On 2016-05-12 14:18, Thierry Reding wrote: > > I agree with Dmitry. Users of the PWM API should always assume that > calls to the PWM API might sleep. Conditionalizing on pwm_can_sleep() > isn't a good idea, since that function is scheduled to be removed. In > fact it's been returning true unconditionally since v4.5, so the fast > path is dead code anyway. >
In this case, the decision is clear ;-) I'll rework and send the new patch in the next days. best regards, manfred
