From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 10:58:39 +0100 Subject: [patch 1/1] mx51: add support for pwm In-Reply-To: References: <20110107090656.517403682@rtp-net.org> Message-ID: <20110107095839.GD25121@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello Jason, On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:30:28PM +0800, Jason Liu wrote: > 2011/1/7 Arnaud Patard : > > This patch is adding support for pwm1 and pwm2 devices found > > on mx51. > > [ this patch has been tested with pwm-backlight driver ] > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard > > Index: linux-2.6-submit/arch/arm/mach-mx5/clock-mx51-mx53.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6-submit.orig/arch/arm/mach-mx5/clock-mx51-mx53.c ? 2011-01-04 11:36:15.000000000 +0100 > > +++ linux-2.6-submit/arch/arm/mach-mx5/clock-mx51-mx53.c ? ? ? ?2011-01-04 11:39:55.000000000 +0100 > > @@ -1206,6 +1206,11 @@ > > ?DEFINE_CLOCK(gpt_clk, 0, MXC_CCM_CCGR2, MXC_CCM_CCGRx_CG9_OFFSET, > > ? ? ? ?NULL, ?NULL, &ipg_clk, &gpt_ipg_clk); > > > > +DEFINE_CLOCK(pwm1_clk, 0, MXC_CCM_CCGR2, MXC_CCM_CCGRx_CG6_OFFSET, > > + ? ? ? NULL, NULL, &ipg_clk, NULL); > > +DEFINE_CLOCK(pwm2_clk, 0, MXC_CCM_CCGR2, MXC_CCM_CCGRx_CG8_OFFSET, > > + ? ? ? NULL, NULL, &ipg_clk, NULL); > > + > > ?/* I2C */ > > ?DEFINE_CLOCK(i2c1_clk, 0, MXC_CCM_CCGR1, MXC_CCM_CCGRx_CG9_OFFSET, > > ? ? ? ?NULL, NULL, &ipg_clk, NULL); > > @@ -1298,6 +1303,8 @@ > > ? ? ? ?_REGISTER_CLOCK("imx-uart.2", NULL, uart3_clk) > > ? ? ? ?_REGISTER_CLOCK(NULL, "gpt", gpt_clk) > > ? ? ? ?_REGISTER_CLOCK("fec.0", NULL, fec_clk) > > + ? ? ? _REGISTER_CLOCK("mxc_pwm.0", "pwm", pwm1_clk) > > + ? ? ? _REGISTER_CLOCK("mxc_pwm.1", "pwm", pwm2_clk) > > ? ? ? ?_REGISTER_CLOCK("imx-i2c.0", NULL, i2c1_clk) > > ? ? ? ?_REGISTER_CLOCK("imx-i2c.1", NULL, i2c2_clk) > > ? ? ? ?_REGISTER_CLOCK("imx-i2c.2", NULL, hsi2c_clk) > > Index: linux-2.6-submit/arch/arm/mach-mx5/devices.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6-submit.orig/arch/arm/mach-mx5/devices.c ? 2011-01-04 11:11:43.000000000 +0100 > > +++ linux-2.6-submit/arch/arm/mach-mx5/devices.c ? ? ? ?2011-01-04 11:39:55.000000000 +0100 > > @@ -120,6 +120,44 @@ > > ? ? ? ?}, > > ?}; > [...] > > +struct platform_device mxc_pwm2_device = { > > + ? ? ? .name = "mxc_pwm", > > + ? ? ? .id = 1, > > + ? ? ? .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pwm2_resources), > > + ? ? ? .resource = pwm2_resources, > > +}; > > + > > Why not follow the arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/platform-imx-xxx to add > devices support? good question. Note that arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/platform-mxc_pwm.c already exists in Sascha's tree. (Maybe now even Linus'.) > I saw that some devices was added in arch/arm/mach-mx5/devices.c, but > most are in > arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/xx, what's the rule for it when we add > device support? devices.c was used traditionally and isn't yet completely converted. Mostly due to lack of time for such things. So I'd say: for new things use the dynamic stuff in arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices and if you're motivated help converting the existing devices to it, too. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |