From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] pwm: rockchip: Allow polarity invert on rk3288 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 09:18:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20140819071857.GD12859@ulmo> References: <1408381749-14156-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <1408381749-14156-3-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1sNVjLsmu1MXqwQ/" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1408381749-14156-3-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> Sender: linux-pwm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Heiko Stuebner , Caesar Wang , Sonny Rao , olof@lixom.net, Eddie Cai , robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --1sNVjLsmu1MXqwQ/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:07AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: [...] > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c > #define PWM_LP_DISABLE (0 << 8) > =20 > @@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_chip { > struct pwm_chip chip; > struct clk *clk; > const struct rockchip_pwm_data *data; > + enum pwm_polarity polarity; Why do you need this field? struct pwm_device already has a copy of it. > @@ -74,10 +78,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chi= p *chip, bool enable) > { > struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc =3D to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip); > u32 enable_conf =3D PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE | > - PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | > - PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE; > + PWM_CONTINUOUS; > u32 val; > =20 > + if (pc->polarity =3D=3D PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED) > + enable_conf |=3D PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE; > + else > + enable_conf |=3D PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE; I have a feeling you're going to answer the above question with: "Because it's needed here". If so, my reply would be: "Then this function should take a struct pwm_device instead of struct pwm_chip." > @@ -173,6 +195,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 =3D= { > .ctrl =3D 0x0c, > }, > .prescaler =3D 1, > + .has_invert =3D 1, Since has_invert is a boolean, the proper value here would be "true". > @@ -228,6 +252,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device= *pdev) > pc->data =3D id->data; > pc->chip.dev =3D &pdev->dev; > pc->chip.ops =3D &rockchip_pwm_ops; > + if (pc->data->has_invert) { > + pc->chip.of_xlate =3D of_pwm_xlate_with_flags; > + pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells =3D 3; > + } > pc->chip.base =3D -1; > pc->chip.npwm =3D 1; I suggest to rewrite the above as follows for readability: pc->data =3D id->data; pc->chip.dev =3D &pdev->dev; pc->chip.ops =3D &rockchip_pwm_ops; pc->chip.base =3D -1; pc->chip.npwm =3D 1; + + if (pc->data->has_invert) { + pc->chip.of_xlate =3D of_pwm_xlate_with_flags; + pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells =3D 3; + } Thierry --1sNVjLsmu1MXqwQ/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT8vphAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhNqAQAKjhdIO0mRKBlcuqjV+55gGa ZjSeGG/zLHhxCjn9OP9HEqEnPqT8q46beRO7LfpewQLqX7avnirGHHcx4bTV7Myf RyvPqtwEIwz7Z4/NCrbqI/EDTDnyue+wEzkIdsvOa4YRjqWHSA5rI1BLjo2lFYAo l1ism4Bl3XDnr1PhTWsZztOkivCTUkMkGuLaLoDEIzDD7Dw5ul+U4mQP7POACFfm NObvxsFn3yUFexeAIB1pib7hWL2NI8oOPUfnBiLg1hdRR9vVFeDbqQoM5yGBpKJU yGipps4fyxsoqpfTsD9k4WNwcfY+34jF6vTfUSHkUv2qSOBp7viWWcXLUKsK7Izx VWz6G3cWrpPK9gQO/w1awRVVEhbIb1CsK889YIl9Ak9WQFSvYSxYsqtSLQAJloEW j+zxg8Gzsrib2nfqzUsrqjRYqoY1oS89u4/xOYqNvECkEeMCDQhLvGl+R1XdCoYK p3aXb16F+GdZpmmlrwP0CJNUr4wRKWqnMjqDjC0b7VbqHdlSWDpH5Xu0OPNv8XSB HYiDMx94tTc2KWNLIQbEqnM1Txjj+EPnJbiBuwVDiHO/f2yvqyVZNB5RNbUaEUN9 ATpZg3jE0j2B9iUmkGew95S8DQmT8lTpd+6J+JgkPpijjKTwfGMMHNxMJvdTq0Zx sgyZA5HIusA8oEMXFQ4L =FxyI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1sNVjLsmu1MXqwQ/--