From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:49:55 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH 05/15] pwm: introduce default period and polarity concepts In-Reply-To: <20150702064445.GC11824@pengutronix.de> References: <1435738921-25027-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1435738921-25027-6-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20150702064445.GC11824@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20150702094955.4b1c9254@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 08:44:45 +0200 Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:51AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > When requested by a user, the PWM is assigned a default period and polarity > > extracted from the DT, the platform data or statically set by the driver. > > Those default values are currently stored in the period and polarity > > fields of the pwm_device struct, but they will be stored somewhere else > > once we have introduced the architecture allowing for hardware state > > retrieval. > > > > The pwm_set_default_polarity and pwm_set_default_period should only be > > used by PWM drivers or the PWM core infrastructure to specify the > > default period and polarity values. > Would it make sense to put the prototypes of > pwm_set_default_p{olarity,eriod} into (say) drivers/pwm/pwm-private.h > then? > Yes, definitely. I was thinking about moving those functions/prototypes into include/linux/pwm-provider.h, but I'm fine with drivers/pwm/pwm-private.h too. Thierry, any opinion ? -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com