ARM: imx: pwm: Add support for MX53

Submitted by Fabio Estevam on Aug. 23, 2011, 4:26 p.m.

Details

Message ID 1314116798-12755-1-git-send-email-fabio.estevam@freescale.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Fabio Estevam Aug. 23, 2011, 4:26 p.m.
Instead of adding the check for MX53 CPU type, use the negative logic and let 
PWM to be configured for MX53 as well.

Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
---
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Comments

Sascha Hauer Aug. 24, 2011, 8:18 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:26:38PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Instead of adding the check for MX53 CPU type, use the negative logic and let 
> PWM to be configured for MX53 as well.

Applied for next.

Sascha

> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
> index 761c3c9..42d74ea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>  	if (pwm == NULL || period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (cpu_is_mx27() || cpu_is_mx3() || cpu_is_mx25() || cpu_is_mx51()) {
> +	if (!(cpu_is_mx1() || cpu_is_mx21())) {
>  		unsigned long long c;
>  		unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
>  		u32 cr;
> -- 
> 1.7.1
> 
> 
>
Uwe Kleine-König Aug. 24, 2011, 8:25 a.m.
Hello Fabio,

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:26:38PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Instead of adding the check for MX53 CPU type, use the negative logic and let 
> PWM to be configured for MX53 as well.
I wonder why you prefer negative logic here. It might be shorter, but it
is also less robust. For example it seems to me you not only added
support for i.MX53 but also i.MX50.

The IMHO best solution would be to use device ids and get rid of
cpu_is_mx.. completely.

Best regards
Uwe
>  arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
> index 761c3c9..42d74ea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>  	if (pwm == NULL || period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (cpu_is_mx27() || cpu_is_mx3() || cpu_is_mx25() || cpu_is_mx51()) {
> +	if (!(cpu_is_mx1() || cpu_is_mx21())) {
>  		unsigned long long c;
>  		unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
>  		u32 cr;
Lothar Waßmann Aug. 24, 2011, 8:33 a.m.
Uwe Kleine-König writes:
> Hello Fabio,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:26:38PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > Instead of adding the check for MX53 CPU type, use the negative logic and let 
> > PWM to be configured for MX53 as well.
> I wonder why you prefer negative logic here. It might be shorter, but it
> is also less robust. For example it seems to me you not only added
> support for i.MX53 but also i.MX50.
> 
> The IMHO best solution would be to use device ids and get rid of
> cpu_is_mx.. completely.
> 
+1


Lothar Waßmann

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
index 761c3c9..42d74ea 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@  int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
 	if (pwm == NULL || period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (cpu_is_mx27() || cpu_is_mx3() || cpu_is_mx25() || cpu_is_mx51()) {
+	if (!(cpu_is_mx1() || cpu_is_mx21())) {
 		unsigned long long c;
 		unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
 		u32 cr;