From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756704Ab3AYMfE (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:35:04 -0500 Received: from smtp4.epfl.ch ([128.178.224.219]:54335 "HELO smtp4.epfl.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754841Ab3AYMfA (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:35:00 -0500 Message-ID: <51027BEF.8080506@epfl.ch> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:34:55 +0100 From: Florian Vaussard Reply-To: florian.vaussard@epfl.ch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Ujfalusi CC: Bryan Wu , Richard Purdie , Thierry Reding , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pwm: Add pwm_cansleep() as exported API to users References: <1359108114-16998-1-git-send-email-florian.vaussard@epfl.ch> <1359108114-16998-2-git-send-email-florian.vaussard@epfl.ch> <51027B43.1080504@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <51027B43.1080504@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le 25/01/2013 13:32, Peter Ujfalusi a écrit : > On 01/25/2013 11:01 AM, Florian Vaussard wrote: >> Calls to some external PWM chips can sleep. To help users, >> add pwm_cansleep() API. >> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard >> --- >> drivers/pwm/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> include/linux/pwm.h | 10 ++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c >> index 4a13da4..f49bfa6 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c >> @@ -763,6 +763,18 @@ void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm) >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_pwm_put); >> >> +/** >> + * pwm_can_sleep() - report whether pwm access will sleep >> + * @pwm: PWM device >> + * >> + * It returns nonzero if accessing the PWM can sleep. >> + */ >> +int pwm_can_sleep(struct pwm_device *pwm) >> +{ >> + return pwm->chip->can_sleep; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_can_sleep); > > Can we name this as pwm_cansleep() to be more alligned with the > gpio_cansleep() API? > Sure >> + >> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS >> static void pwm_dbg_show(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct seq_file *s) >> { >> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h >> index 70655a2..2aee75d 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h >> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h >> @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ struct pwm_ops { >> * @base: number of first PWM controlled by this chip >> * @npwm: number of PWMs controlled by this chip >> * @pwms: array of PWM devices allocated by the framework >> + * @can_sleep: flag must be set iff config()/enable()/disable() methods sleep, >> + * as they must while accessing PWM chips over I2C or SPI >> */ >> struct pwm_chip { >> struct device *dev; >> @@ -159,6 +161,7 @@ struct pwm_chip { >> struct pwm_device * (*of_xlate)(struct pwm_chip *pc, >> const struct of_phandle_args *args); >> unsigned int of_pwm_n_cells; >> + unsigned int can_sleep:1; >> }; >> >> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM) >> @@ -182,6 +185,8 @@ struct pwm_device *devm_pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id); >> struct pwm_device *devm_of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np, >> const char *con_id); >> void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm); >> + >> +int pwm_can_sleep(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> #else >> static inline int pwm_set_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm, void *data) >> { >> @@ -242,6 +247,11 @@ static inline struct pwm_device *devm_of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, >> static inline void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm) >> { >> } >> + >> +static inline int pwm_can_sleep(struct pwm_device *pwm) >> +{ >> + return -EINVAL; > > I think we should return 0 here instead an error. > Ok, it makes sense. >> +} >> #endif >> >> struct pwm_lookup { >> > > Thank you, Florian