From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: caesar Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:05:34 +0800 Message-ID: <53E2FB0E.40301@rock-chips.com> References: <1406197295-10604-1-git-send-email-caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> <1406197295-10604-3-git-send-email-caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> <53E2D605.2000704@rock-chips.com> <53E2F11A.1040109@rock-chips.com> <53E2F471.6020701@rock-chips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Thierry Reding , =?UTF-8?B?SGVpa28gU3TDvGJu?= =?UTF-8?B?ZXI=?= , Beniamino Galvani , Rob Herring , Ian Campbell , Randy Dunlap , Kumar Gala , Eddie Cai , Tao Huang , Jianqun Xu , Addy Ke , =?UTF-8?B?6ZmI5riQ6aOe?= , han jiang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , linux-pwm , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org Doug, =E5=9C=A8 2014=E5=B9=B408=E6=9C=8807=E6=97=A5 11:46, Doug Anderson =E5=86= =99=E9=81=93: > Caesar, > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:37 PM, caesar w= rote: >> Doug, >> >> =E5=9C=A8 2014=E5=B9=B408=E6=9C=8807=E6=97=A5 11:26, Doug Anderson =E5= =86=99=E9=81=93: >> >>> caesar, >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar = wrote: >>>> =E5=9C=A8 2014=E5=B9=B408=E6=9C=8807=E6=97=A5 10:16, Doug Anderson= =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: >>>> >>>>> Caesar, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Doug, >>>>>> >>>>>> =E5=9C=A8 2014=E5=B9=B408=E6=9C=8807=E6=97=A5 06:46, Doug Anders= on =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Caesar, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 =3D { >>>>>>>> + .regs.duty =3D PWM_HRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.period =3D PWM_LRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.cntr =3D PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl =3D PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>>> + .prescaler =3D PRESCALER, >>>>>>>> + .set_enable =3D rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1, >>>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 =3D { >>>>>>>> + .regs.duty =3D PWM_LRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.period =3D PWM_HRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.cntr =3D PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl =3D PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>>> + .prescaler =3D PRESCALER-1, >>>>>>>> + .set_enable =3D rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2, >>>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop =3D { >>>>>>>> + .regs.duty =3D PWM_LRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.period =3D PWM_HRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.cntr =3D PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl =3D PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here? If so, that's = super >>>>>>> confusing and deserves a comment. AKA, I think the above shoul= d not >>>>>>> be: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + .regs.cntr =3D PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl =3D PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...but should be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + .regs.cntr =3D PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl =3D PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get ri= d of >>>>>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2. In fact, I'd suggest th= at you >>>>>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing dif= ferent >>>>>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm". >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and >>>>>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers. >>>>>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL = =2E >>>>> OK, I looked up in the TRM. Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped= on >>>>> the vop. So I think that the only change you need is to add: >>>>> >>>>> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL 0x00 >>>>> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR 0x0c >>>>> >>>>> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing. The = new >>>>> #defines will fix this. >>>>> >>>> yeah, I think they can be used in the same context. >>>> >>>> I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need. >>> I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then i= t's >>> really his decision. >> I remember In patch v2 [1],Thierry suggests me to fix it so if I hav= e no to >> get wrong. >> >> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113 > I think Thierry might not have realized that they were flipped... > > -Doug > > > Maybe you are right. I will sent patch v5 fix the about tomorrow if it has no other problems= =2E From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: caesar.wang@rock-chips.com (caesar) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:05:34 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC In-Reply-To: References: <1406197295-10604-1-git-send-email-caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> <1406197295-10604-3-git-send-email-caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> <53E2D605.2000704@rock-chips.com> <53E2F11A.1040109@rock-chips.com> <53E2F471.6020701@rock-chips.com> Message-ID: <53E2FB0E.40301@rock-chips.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Doug, ? 2014?08?07? 11:46, Doug Anderson ??: > Caesar, > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:37 PM, caesar wrote: >> Doug, >> >> ? 2014?08?07? 11:26, Doug Anderson ??: >> >>> caesar, >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar wrote: >>>> ? 2014?08?07? 10:16, Doug Anderson ??: >>>> >>>>> Caesar, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Doug, >>>>>> >>>>>> ? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Caesar, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = { >>>>>>>> + .regs.duty = PWM_HRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.period = PWM_LRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>>> + .prescaler = PRESCALER, >>>>>>>> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1, >>>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = { >>>>>>>> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>>> + .prescaler = PRESCALER-1, >>>>>>>> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2, >>>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = { >>>>>>>> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC, >>>>>>>> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here? If so, that's super >>>>>>> confusing and deserves a comment. AKA, I think the above should not >>>>>>> be: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...but should be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR, >>>>>>> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of >>>>>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2. In fact, I'd suggest that you >>>>>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different >>>>>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm". >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and >>>>>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers. >>>>>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL . >>>>> OK, I looked up in the TRM. Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on >>>>> the vop. So I think that the only change you need is to add: >>>>> >>>>> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL 0x00 >>>>> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR 0x0c >>>>> >>>>> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing. The new >>>>> #defines will fix this. >>>>> >>>> yeah, I think they can be used in the same context. >>>> >>>> I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need. >>> I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then it's >>> really his decision. >> I remember In patch v2 [1],Thierry suggests me to fix it so if I have no to >> get wrong. >> >> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113 > I think Thierry might not have realized that they were flipped... > > -Doug > > > Maybe you are right. I will sent patch v5 fix the about tomorrow if it has no other problems.