From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "David.Wu" <david.wu@rock-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] pwm: rockchip: Remove the dumplicate
 rockchip_pwm_ops ops
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 23:41:46 +0800
Message-ID: <78121683-137a-eb5c-c447-e763b18ccd12@rock-chips.com>
References: <1499486629-9659-1-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com>
 <1499486629-9659-4-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com>
 <20170802105902.2d137072@bbrezillon>
 <af056420-5c33-e6c8-62cb-bcd3456000a7@rock-chips.com>
 <20170802134011.1124f1dd@bbrezillon>
 <6d1f60ee-2402-5ee0-54f6-9521c039c36c@rock-chips.com>
 <20170804090935.6aba3351@bbrezillon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170804090935.6aba3351@bbrezillon>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, heiko@sntech.de, robh+dt@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, briannorris@chromium.org, dianders@chromium.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, huangtao@rock-chips.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

Hi Boris,

在 2017/8/4 15:09, Boris Brezillon 写道:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 10:38:26 +0800
> "David.Wu" <david.wu@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Boris，
>>
>> 在 2017/8/2 19:40, Boris Brezillon 写道:
>>> 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.

I use the same pwm ops for each IP at V3's patch, but defined 3 
different rockchip_pwm_data for use. I think this might look more clean.

> 
> 
>