Sorry for taking an awful long time to get around to this. The driver
looks generally okay, but I have a few minor comments...

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 06:08:44PM +0900, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> This patch adds support for R-Car SoCs PWM Timer.

This could be a little more verbose. You could say for example how many
channels the driver exposes, or mention typical use-cases (if any).

> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
[...]
> +static int rcar_pwm_get_clock_division(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, int 
> period_ns)
> +{
> +     int div;

Can be unsigned int.

> +     unsigned long clk_rate = clk_get_rate(rp->clk);
> +     unsigned long long max; /* max cycle / nanoseconds */
> +
> +     if (!clk_rate)

I prefer it when these are explicit: clk_rate == 0. This goes for
numerical comparisons. For booleans, or NULL pointer comparisons the
!expression is fine.

> +static int rcar_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +                        int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> +{
> +     struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> +     int div = rcar_pwm_get_clock_division(rp, period_ns);
> +     int ret;
> +
> +     if (div < 0)
> +             return div;
> +
> +     /* Let the core driver set pwm->period if disabled and duty_ns == 0 */
> +     if (!test_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, &pwm->flags) && !duty_ns)
> +             return 0;
> +
> +     rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR);
> +     ret = rcar_pwm_set_counter(rp, div, duty_ns, period_ns);
> +     rcar_pwm_set_clock_control(rp, div);
> +     rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, 0, RCAR_PWMCR);
> +
> +     return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int rcar_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> +     struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> +     u32 pwmcnt;
> +
> +     /* Don't enable the PWM device if CYC0 or PH0 is 0 */
> +     pwmcnt = rcar_pwm_read(rp, RCAR_PWMCNT);
> +     if (!(pwmcnt & RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK) ||
> +         !(pwmcnt & RCAR_PWMCNT_PH0_MASK))
> +             return -EINVAL;

This looks wrong. Any errors in configuration should've been caught by
the ->config() implementation. Why can't you return -EINVAL on this
condition in ->config()? ->enable() failing should only be the case if
truly the PWM can't be enabled, not if it's badly configured.

> +static struct platform_driver rcar_pwm_driver = {
> +     .probe          = rcar_pwm_probe,
> +     .remove         = rcar_pwm_remove,
> +     .driver         = {
> +             .name   = "pwm-rcar",
> +             .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(rcar_pwm_of_table),
> +     }
> +};

This doesn't need the artificial padding. A single space around = is
enough.

Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to