On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 05:06:27PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > In order to get rid of the global namespace for PWM devices, this commit > provides an alternative method, similar to that of the regulator or > clock frameworks, for registering a static mapping for PWM devices. This > works by providing a table with a provider/consumer map in the board > setup code. > > With the new pwm_get() and pwm_put() functions available, usage of > pwm_request() and pwm_free() becomes deprecated. > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <[email protected]> ... > diff --git a/Documentation/pwm.txt b/Documentation/pwm.txt > index 48f598a..bb3d2f9 100644 > --- a/Documentation/pwm.txt > +++ b/Documentation/pwm.txt > @@ -12,14 +12,33 @@ this kind of flexibility the generic PWM API exists. > Identifying PWMs > ---------------- > > -Users of the legacy PWM API use unique IDs to refer to PWM devices. One > -goal of the new PWM framework is to get rid of this global namespace. > +Users of the legacy PWM API use unique IDs to refer to PWM devices. > + > +Instead of referring to a PWM device via its unique ID, board setup code > +should instead register a static mapping that can be used to match PWM > +consumers to providers, as given in the following example: > + > + static struct pwm_lookup board_pwm_lookup[] = { > + PWM_LOOKUP("tegra-pwm", 0, "pwm-backlight"),
PWM_LOOKUP takes 4 parameters now. Other than that, Reviewed-by: Shawn Guo <[email protected]> Regards, Shawn > + }; > + > + static void __init board_init(void) > + { > + ... > + pwm_add_table(board_pwm_lookup, ARRAY_SIZE(board_pwm_lookup)); > + ... > + } _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
