On 11/16/2015 08:53 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800
Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
update.
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>
---
Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
--->8---
virtual patch
@@
struct pwm_device *p;
expression e;
@@
(
-(p)->polarity = e;
+pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
|
-(p)->polarity
+pwm_get_polarity((p))
s/((p))/(p)/
|
-(p)->period = e;
+pwm_set_period((p), e);
|
-(p)->period
+pwm_get_period((p))
s/((p))/(p)/
|
-(p)->duty_cycle = e;
+pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
The (p) seems unnecessary here.
I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around
p, right?
Same as above - s/(p)/p/. It should never be necessary to write
pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e)
since
pwm_set_duty_cycle(p, e)
should be the same.
On the other side, I did not see this expression used in any of the patches,
though maybe I missed it.
Thanks,
Guenter
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
