From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Brezillon Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:06:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/24] pwm: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate Message-Id: <20151116190646.1d5ba16e@bbrezillon> List-Id: References: <1447664207-24370-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1447664207-24370-3-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hi Joachim, On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:46:44 +0100 Joachim Eastwood wrote: > Hi Boris > > (Adding Ariel for pwm-lpc18xx-sct) > > On 16 November 2015 at 09:56, Boris Brezillon > wrote: > > Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field. > > Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic > > update. > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon > > --- > > Patch generated with the following coccinelle script: > > > > --->8--- > > virtual patch > > > > @@ > > struct pwm_device *p; > > expression e; > > @@ > > ( > > -(p)->polarity = e; > > +pwm_set_polarity((p), e); > > | > > -(p)->polarity > > +pwm_get_polarity((p)) > > | > > -(p)->period = e; > > +pwm_set_period((p), e); > > | > > -(p)->period > > +pwm_get_period((p)) > > | > > -(p)->duty_cycle = e; > > +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e); > > | > > -(p)->duty_cycle > > +pwm_get_duty_cycle((p)) > > ) > > --->8--- > > --- > > drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 2 +- > > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > > index 7101c70..2f88543 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > > @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm, > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > - if (pwm->period != period_ns) { > > + if (pwm_get_period((pwm)) != period_ns) { > > int clk_div; > > > > /* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */ > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c > > index 9163085..091fa13 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c > > @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ static int lpc18xx_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) > > LPC18XX_PWM_EVSTATEMSK(lpc18xx_data->duty_event), > > LPC18XX_PWM_EVSTATEMSK_ALL); > > > > - if (pwm->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) { > > + if (pwm_get_polarity((pwm)) = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) { > > What is the deal with the double parentheses? > > Think I saw that in some of the other patches as well. It comes from a typo in my coccinelle script. I already fixed it and regenerated the faulty patches, so please ignore this aspect while reviewing (this will be addressed in the next version). Thanks, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com