[PATCH v2 3/7] pwm: rockchip: Remove the dumplicate rockchip_pwm_ops ops

[boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon)]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 10:38:26 +0800
"David.Wu" <david.wu@rock-chips.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris?
> 
> ? 2017/8/2 19:40, Boris Brezillon ??:
> > Yep, just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), each of them
> > implementing ->apply() and ->get_state() and that's all.
> > 
> > Something like:
> > 
> > static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = {
> > 	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_v1_get_state,
> > 	.apply = rockchip_pwm_v1_apply,
> > 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > };
> > 
> > static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> > 	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_v2_get_state,
> > 	.apply = rockchip_pwm_v2_apply,
> > 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > };
> > 
> > static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_vop = {
> > 	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_vop_get_state,
> > 	.apply = rockchip_pwm_vop_apply,
> > 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > };
> > 
> > static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> > 	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 },
> > 	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 },
> > 	{ .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_vop },
> > 	{ /* sentinel */ }
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);  
> 
> I think we should keep the data members in the rockchip_pwm_data?like 
> supports_polarity and regs...
> 
> The supports_polarity is needed for of_pwm_n_cells when pwm registered.
> And the other data members is helpful for us to use common code.
> 
> It's okay for just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), but 
> they are with other data members in the struct of rockchip_pwm_data.
> 

I think we could even get rid of the other fields in rockchip_pwm_data,
but ok, let's do that.