Hi Boris, > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200 > Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200 > > Lukasz Majewski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by > > > implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback). > > > > > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag - > > > "polarity_supported" has been introduced. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = { > > > }; > > > > > > struct imx_pwm_data { > > > + bool polarity_supported; > > > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops; > > > }; > > > > > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = { > > > }; > > > > > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = { > > > + .polarity_supported = true, > > > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2, > > > }; > > > > > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct > > > platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1; > > > imx->chip.npwm = 1; > > > imx->chip.can_sleep = true; > > > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) { > > > + if (data->polarity_supported) { > > > > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining > > #pwm-cells = 2. > > > > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate > > should be used. > > Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2].
Yes, some patches are required to make this code work. Especially, I wanted to explicitly reuse and credit work already done by Bhuvanchandra. > But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be part > of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity implementation. > Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity setting between > patch 5 and 6. Frankly speaking, I did it on purpose, to have operations in commits logically separated. I personally, do detest commits which blur the picture and are not corresponding to one single logical change - for example remove some large chunk of code and also add some tiny, new flag. For me it is not a problem to have polarity disabled between patches 5 and 6, since at the end of the day we have it enabled. Thanks for your support and review, Best regards, Łukasz Majewski > > > > > > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output > > > inversion\n"); imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags; > > > imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3; > > > > [1]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679706/ > [2]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679707/
pgpLu1Hp60f8A.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
