[PATCH v3 pre-03/12] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled()

[PATCH v3 pre-03/12] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled()

[Boris Brezillon]

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 <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
---
Hi Thierry,

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);
-- 
2.1.4

[PATCH v3 pre-03/12] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled()

[Boris Brezillon]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:10:38 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> 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 <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
> 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

[PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

[Boris Brezillon]

Hello,

This series adds support for atomic PWM update, or IOW, the capability
to update all the parameters of a PWM device (enabled/disabled, period,
duty and polarity) in one go.

Best Regards,

Boris

Changes since v2:
- rebased on top of 4.3-rc2
- reintroduced pwm-regulator patches

Changes since v1:
- dropped applied patches
- squashed Heiko's fixes into the rockchip driver changes
- made a few cosmetic changes
- added kerneldoc comments
- added Heiko's patch to display more information in debugfs
- dropped pwm-regulator patches (should be submitted separately)

Boris Brezillon (11):
  pwm: introduce default period and polarity concepts
  pwm: define a new pwm_state struct
  pwm: move the enabled/disabled info to pwm_state struct
  backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period
  pwm: declare a default PWM state
  pwm: add the PWM initial state retrieval infra
  pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update
  pwm: rockchip: add initial state retrieval
  pwm: rockchip: add support for atomic update
  regulator: pwm: implement ->enable(), ->disable() and ->is_enabled
    methods
  regulator: pwm: properly initialize the ->state field

Heiko St?bner (1):
  pwm: add information about polarity, duty cycle and period to debugfs

 drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c              |   2 +-
 drivers/pwm/core.c                   | 169 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.c                |   2 +-
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++-----
 drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c              |   3 +-
 drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c    |  65 ++++++++++++--
 drivers/video/backlight/lm3630a_bl.c |   4 +-
 drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c     |  10 ++-
 drivers/video/fbdev/ssd1307fb.c      |   2 +-
 include/linux/pwm.h                  |  89 +++++++++++++++---
 10 files changed, 392 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH v3 pre-03/12] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled()

[Boris Brezillon]

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 <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
---
Hi Thierry,

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);
-- 
2.1.4