| Message ID | 20200607181840.13536-12-hdegoede@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API | expand |
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:18:36PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Implement the pwm_ops.get_state() method to complete the support for the > new atomic PWM API. This one is good. Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > index 58c7e9ef7278..6c75a3470bc8 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > @@ -114,8 +114,37 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > return 0; > } > > +static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > + struct pwm_state *state) > +{ > + struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip); > + struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev; > + unsigned int clk_div, clk_div_reg, duty_cycle_reg; > + int error; > + > + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, &clk_div_reg); > + if (error) { > + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", error); > + return; > + } > + > + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, &duty_cycle_reg); > + if (error) { > + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", error); > + return; > + } > + > + clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1; > + > + state->period = clk_div * NSEC_PER_MHZ * 256 / PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ; > + state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period / PWM_MAX_LEVEL; > + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; > + state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); > +} > + > static const struct pwm_ops crc_pwm_ops = { > .apply = crc_pwm_apply, > + .get_state = crc_pwm_get_state, > }; > > static int crystalcove_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > -- > 2.26.2 >
Hello, On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:18:36PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Implement the pwm_ops.get_state() method to complete the support for the > new atomic PWM API. > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > index 58c7e9ef7278..6c75a3470bc8 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > @@ -114,8 +114,37 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > return 0; > } > > +static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > + struct pwm_state *state) > +{ > + struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip); > + struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev; > + unsigned int clk_div, clk_div_reg, duty_cycle_reg; > + int error; > + > + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, &clk_div_reg); > + if (error) { > + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", error); > + return; > + } > + > + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, &duty_cycle_reg); > + if (error) { > + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", error); > + return; > + } I assume that duty_cycle_reg cannot be bigger than 0xff? Would it make sense to mask the value accordingly to get more robust code? > + clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1; > + > + state->period = clk_div * NSEC_PER_MHZ * 256 / PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ; > + state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period / PWM_MAX_LEVEL; > + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; > + state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); These aligned = look strange (IMHO). If you don't feel strong here I'd like to see a single space before a =. Unrelated to your series I think we should change .get_state() to return an error indication. Best regards Uwe
Hi, On 6/11/20 11:37 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:18:36PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Implement the pwm_ops.get_state() method to complete the support for the >> new atomic PWM API. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> >> --- >> drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c >> index 58c7e9ef7278..6c75a3470bc8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c >> @@ -114,8 +114,37 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, >> + struct pwm_state *state) >> +{ >> + struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip); >> + struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev; >> + unsigned int clk_div, clk_div_reg, duty_cycle_reg; >> + int error; >> + >> + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, &clk_div_reg); >> + if (error) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", error); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, &duty_cycle_reg); >> + if (error) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", error); >> + return; >> + } > > I assume that duty_cycle_reg cannot be bigger than 0xff? Would it make > sense to mask the value accordingly to get more robust code? > >> + clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1; >> + >> + state->period = clk_div * NSEC_PER_MHZ * 256 / PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ; >> + state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period / PWM_MAX_LEVEL; >> + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; >> + state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); > > These aligned = look strange (IMHO). If you don't feel strong here I'd > like to see a single space before a =. Ok, will change for the next version. Regards, Hans
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c index 58c7e9ef7278..6c75a3470bc8 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c @@ -114,8 +114,37 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, return 0; } +static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + struct pwm_state *state) +{ + struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip); + struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev; + unsigned int clk_div, clk_div_reg, duty_cycle_reg; + int error; + + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, &clk_div_reg); + if (error) { + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", error); + return; + } + + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, &duty_cycle_reg); + if (error) { + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", error); + return; + } + + clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1; + + state->period = clk_div * NSEC_PER_MHZ * 256 / PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ; + state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period / PWM_MAX_LEVEL; + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; + state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); +} + static const struct pwm_ops crc_pwm_ops = { .apply = crc_pwm_apply, + .get_state = crc_pwm_get_state, }; static int crystalcove_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
Implement the pwm_ops.get_state() method to complete the support for the new atomic PWM API. Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> --- drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)