| Message ID | 1477259146-19167-7-git-send-email-l.majewski@majess.pl |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200 Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote: > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by implementing > PWM atomic support (apply() callback). > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag - > "polarity_supported" has been introduced. > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = { > }; > > struct imx_pwm_data { > + bool polarity_supported; > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops; > }; > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = { > }; > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = { > + .polarity_supported = true, > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2, > }; > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > imx->chip.base = -1; > imx->chip.npwm = 1; > imx->chip.can_sleep = true; > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) { > + if (data->polarity_supported) { You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining #pwm-cells = 2. Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate should be used. > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output inversion\n"); > imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags; > imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200 > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote: > > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by implementing > > PWM atomic support (apply() callback). > > > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag - > > "polarity_supported" has been introduced. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> > > --- > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = { > > }; > > > > struct imx_pwm_data { > > + bool polarity_supported; > > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops; > > }; > > > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = { > > }; > > > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = { > > + .polarity_supported = true, > > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2, > > }; > > > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > imx->chip.base = -1; > > imx->chip.npwm = 1; > > imx->chip.can_sleep = true; > > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) { > > + if (data->polarity_supported) { > > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining > #pwm-cells = 2. > > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate should > be used. Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2]. But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be part of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity implementation. Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity setting between patch 5 and 6. > > > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output inversion\n"); > > imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags; > > imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3; > [1]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679706/ [2]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679707/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Boris, > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200 > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200 > > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote: > > > > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by > > > implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback). > > > > > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag - > > > "polarity_supported" has been introduced. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> > > > --- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = { > > > }; > > > > > > struct imx_pwm_data { > > > + bool polarity_supported; > > > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops; > > > }; > > > > > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = { > > > }; > > > > > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = { > > > + .polarity_supported = true, > > > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2, > > > }; > > > > > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct > > > platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1; > > > imx->chip.npwm = 1; > > > imx->chip.can_sleep = true; > > > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) { > > > + if (data->polarity_supported) { > > > > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining > > #pwm-cells = 2. > > > > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate > > should be used. > > Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2]. Yes, some patches are required to make this code work. Especially, I wanted to explicitly reuse and credit work already done by Bhuvanchandra. > But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be part > of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity implementation. > Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity setting between > patch 5 and 6. Frankly speaking, I did it on purpose, to have operations in commits logically separated. I personally, do detest commits which blur the picture and are not corresponding to one single logical change - for example remove some large chunk of code and also add some tiny, new flag. For me it is not a problem to have polarity disabled between patches 5 and 6, since at the end of the day we have it enabled. Thanks for your support and review, Best regards, Łukasz Majewski > > > > > > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output > > > inversion\n"); imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags; > > > imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3; > > > > [1]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679706/ > [2]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679707/
Hi Lukasz, On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:14:58 +0200 Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200 > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200 > > > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote: > > > > > > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by > > > > implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback). > > > > > > > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag - > > > > "polarity_supported" has been introduced. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = { > > > > }; > > > > > > > > struct imx_pwm_data { > > > > + bool polarity_supported; > > > > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = { > > > > }; > > > > > > > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = { > > > > + .polarity_supported = true, > > > > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2, > > > > }; > > > > > > > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct > > > > platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1; > > > > imx->chip.npwm = 1; > > > > imx->chip.can_sleep = true; > > > > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) { > > > > + if (data->polarity_supported) { > > > > > > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining > > > #pwm-cells = 2. > > > > > > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate > > > should be used. > > > > Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2]. > > Yes, some patches are required to make this code work. Especially, I > wanted to explicitly reuse and credit work already done by > Bhuvanchandra. > > > But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be part > > of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity implementation. > > Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity setting between > > patch 5 and 6. > > Frankly speaking, I did it on purpose, to have operations in commits > logically separated. > > I personally, do detest commits which blur the picture and are not > corresponding to one single logical change - for example remove some > large chunk of code and also add some tiny, new flag. > > For me it is not a problem to have polarity disabled between patches 5 > and 6, since at the end of the day we have it enabled. It's really simple to make this series bisectable, all you have to do is move patch 6 before patch 5. This being said, I really think you should follow Stefan's recommendation: base your changes on mainline and switch to the atomic hook before supporting polarity setting. Regards, Boris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Boris, > Hi Lukasz, > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:14:58 +0200 > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote: > > > Hi Boris, > > > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200 > > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200 > > > > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by > > > > > implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback). > > > > > > > > > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new > > > > > flag - "polarity_supported" has been introduced. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++- > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c > > > > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = { > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > struct imx_pwm_data { > > > > > + bool polarity_supported; > > > > > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data > > > > > imx_pwm_data_v1 = { }; > > > > > > > > > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = { > > > > > + .polarity_supported = true, > > > > > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2, > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct > > > > > platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1; > > > > > imx->chip.npwm = 1; > > > > > imx->chip.can_sleep = true; > > > > > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) { > > > > > + if (data->polarity_supported) { > > > > > > > > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining > > > > #pwm-cells = 2. > > > > > > > > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate > > > > should be used. > > > > > > Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2]. > > > > Yes, some patches are required to make this code work. Especially, I > > wanted to explicitly reuse and credit work already done by > > Bhuvanchandra. > > > > > But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be > > > part of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity > > > implementation. Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity > > > setting between patch 5 and 6. > > > > Frankly speaking, I did it on purpose, to have operations in commits > > logically separated. > > > > I personally, do detest commits which blur the picture and are not > > corresponding to one single logical change - for example remove some > > large chunk of code and also add some tiny, new flag. > > > > For me it is not a problem to have polarity disabled between > > patches 5 and 6, since at the end of the day we have it enabled. > > It's really simple to make this series bisectable, all you have to do > is move patch 6 before patch 5. Hmm... You are right, I do wonder why I didn't get this idea from the very beginning. > This being said, I really think you > should follow Stefan's recommendation: base your changes on mainline > and switch to the atomic hook before supporting polarity setting. I will do my best :-) Best regards, Łukasz Majewski > > Regards, > > Boris
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = { }; struct imx_pwm_data { + bool polarity_supported; struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops; }; @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = { }; static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = { + .polarity_supported = true, .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2, }; @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1; imx->chip.npwm = 1; imx->chip.can_sleep = true; - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) { + if (data->polarity_supported) { dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output inversion\n"); imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags; imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback). To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag - "polarity_supported" has been introduced. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> --- drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)