[PATCH 01/17] ARM: pxa: cm-x300: Use PWM lookup table

[robert.jarzmik@free.fr (Robert Jarzmik)]

Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:23:29PM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > @@ -305,11 +306,14 @@ static inline void cm_x300_init_lcd(void) {}
>> >  #endif
>> >  
>> >  #if defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_PWM) || defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_PWM_MODULE)
>> > +static struct pwm_lookup cm_x300_pwm_lookup[] = {
>> > +	PWM_LOOKUP("pxa27x-pwm.0", 1, "pwm-backlight.0", NULL, 10000,
>> > +		   PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL),
>> > +};
>> That looks weird. It was pwm_id = 2, and I can't find the "2" in the statement
>> above. I would gladly fix it myself, but I wonder where that "2" should go ...
>
> pwm_id = 2 should be equivalent to the 1 in the second argument of the
> PWM_LOOKUP macro (i.e. the PWM index). The rationale for that change is
> given in an old commit by Paul Parsons:
> With the lookup tables the situation is somewhat more complicated
> because the indices are relative to the provider. The above would
> therefore map to something like this:
>
> 	Address     Hardware  Device            Index
> 	0x40b00000  PWM0      pxa2{5,7}x-pwm.0  0
> 	0x40b00010  PWM2      pxa27x-pwm.0      1
> 	0x40c00000  PWM1      pxa2{5,7}x-pwm.1  0
> 	0x40c00010  PWM3      pxa27x-pwm.1      1
>
> Does that clarify the situation?
Yes, very much, thanks. That settles the situation for the patches I had not
understood so far, ie. patches 1, 14,16,17.

Therefore, I'll apply the whole serie this week. Thanks for your work.

Cheers.

-- 
Robert