On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:07AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> #define PWM_LP_DISABLE (0 << 8)
>
> @@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_chip {
> struct pwm_chip chip;
> struct clk *clk;
> const struct rockchip_pwm_data *data;
> + enum pwm_polarity polarity;
Why do you need this field? struct pwm_device already has a copy of it.
> @@ -74,10 +78,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip
> *chip, bool enable)
> {
> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> - PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE |
> - PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> + PWM_CONTINUOUS;
> u32 val;
>
> + if (pc->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
> + else
> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
I have a feeling you're going to answer the above question with: "Because
it's needed here". If so, my reply would be: "Then this function should
take a struct pwm_device instead of struct pwm_chip."
> @@ -173,6 +195,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> .ctrl = 0x0c,
> },
> .prescaler = 1,
> + .has_invert = 1,
Since has_invert is a boolean, the proper value here would be "true".
> @@ -228,6 +252,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> pc->data = id->data;
> pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
> + if (pc->data->has_invert) {
> + pc->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> + pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
> + }
> pc->chip.base = -1;
> pc->chip.npwm = 1;
I suggest to rewrite the above as follows for readability:
pc->data = id->data;
pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
pc->chip.base = -1;
pc->chip.npwm = 1;
+
+ if (pc->data->has_invert) {
+ pc->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
+ pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
+ }
Thierry
pgpqelUkdUn8d.pgp
Description: PGP signature
