Hi Boris,

在 2017/8/4 15:09, Boris Brezillon 写道:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 10:38:26 +0800
"David.Wu" <david...@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.

Reply via email to