From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:14:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 pre-03/12] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled() In-Reply-To: <1444489838-13953-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> References: <1444489838-13953-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20151010171420.6c41f2b5@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:10:38 +0200 Boris Brezillon wrote: > Commit 5c31252c4a86 ("pwm: Add the pwm_is_enabled() helper") introduced a > new function to test whether a PWM device is enabled or not without > manipulating PWM internal fields. > Hiding this is necessary if we want to smoothly move to the atomic PWM > config approach without impacting PWM drivers. > Fix this driver to use pwm_is_enabled() instead of directly accessing the > ->flags field. > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon > --- > Hi Thierry, Please ignore this patch: it was meant to be sent in reply to the pwm-atomic series. > > I noticed you applied a few patches adding new PWM drivers in your > pwm-next tree, and one of them is directly testing the PWMF_ENABLED > flag which is removed by patch 3 of this series, which means you have to > apply this patch before patch 3. > > I can resend the whole series if you want, but, unless you have a strong > reason to refuse it, I'd really like to get those changes in, so that I > don't have to rebase and fix the series each time a new driver is added. > > Best Regards, > > Boris > > drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c > index 6e99a63..70899c9 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c > @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int rcar_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > return div; > > /* Let the core driver set pwm->period if disabled and duty_ns == 0 */ > - if (!test_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, &pwm->flags) && !duty_ns) > + if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && !duty_ns) > return 0; > > rcar_pwm_update(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR); -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com