Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] pwm: rename pwm_apply_state() to pwm_apply_cansleep()

[Sean Young]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 02:31:18PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 04:16:17PM +0000, Sean Young wrote:
> > In order to introduce a pwm api which can be used from atomic context,
> > we will need two functions for applying pwm changes:
> > 
> > 	int pwm_apply_cansleep(struct pwm *, struct pwm_state *);
> > 	int pwm_apply_atomic(struct pwm *, struct pwm_state *);
> > 
> > This commit just deals with renaming pwm_apply_state(), a following
> > commit will introduce the pwm_apply_atomic() function.
> 
> Sorry, I still don't agree with that _cansleep suffix. I think it's the
> wrong terminology. Just because something can sleep doesn't mean that it
> ever will. "Might sleep" is much more accurate because it says exactly
> what might happen and indicates what we're guarding against.

Sorry, I forgot about this in the last round. I've renamed it _might_sleep
in v6 which I'll post shortly.


Sean