On 06/07/2011 06:03 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:21:51 +0530
Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+ * lock: lock specific to a pwm device

More specificity here would be helpful.  Precisely which data does the
lock protect?

quoted

+ * lock: lock specific to current pwm ip

Ditto.

Ok.

quoted

+int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwmd, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
+{
+	u64 val, div, clk_rate;
+	unsigned long prescale = MIN_PRESCALE, pv, dc;
+	int ret = 0;
+
+	if (!pwmd) {
+		pr_err("pwm: config - NULL pwm device pointer\n");
+		return -EFAULT;
+	}
+
+	if (period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns) {
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto err;
+	}
+
+	/* TODO: Need to optimize this loop */
+	while (1) {
+		div = 1000000000;
+		div *= 1 + prescale;
+		clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pwmd->pwm->clk);
+		val = clk_rate * period_ns;
+		pv = div64_u64(val, div);
+		val = clk_rate * duty_ns;
+		dc = div64_u64(val, div);
+
+		if ((pv == 0) || (dc == 0)) {
+			ret = -EINVAL;
+			goto err;
+		}
+		if ((pv > MAX_PERIOD) || (dc > MAX_DUTY)) {
+			prescale++;
+			if (prescale > MAX_PRESCALE) {
+				ret = -EINVAL;
+				goto err;
+			}
+			continue;
+		}
+		if ((pv < MIN_PERIOD) || (dc < MIN_DUTY)) {
+			ret = -EINVAL;
+			goto err;
+		}
+		break;
+	}

gee, is this some sort of puzzle?  So human-readable description of
what this code is doing would be an improvement.

Sure. Will add that.

quoted

+	spin_lock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+	ret = clk_enable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
+	if (ret) {
+		spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+		goto err;
+	}
+
+	spin_lock(&pwmd->lock);
+	writel(prescale << PRESCALE_SHIFT, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base +
+			pwmd->offset + PWMCR);
+	writel(dc, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMDCR);
+	writel(pv, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMPCR);
+	spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
+	clk_disable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
+	spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);

The nesting rules for these two locks seems sensible and obvious, but I
guess documenting the rule wouldn't hurt.

Ok.

quoted

+	return 0;
+err:
+	dev_err(&pwmd->pwm->pdev->dev, "pwm config fail\n");
+	return ret;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_config);
+

...

+static int __devinit st_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

And here things get rather odd.

Most of this file is a generic, non-device specific PWM layer, exported
to other modules.  But then we get into driver bits which are specific
to one paritular type of device.  Confused - this is like putting the
e100 driver inside net/ipv4/tcp.c?

Sorry but i couldn't get this one completely. :(
Driver is specific to pwm peripheral by ST. This driver can be used for
SPEAr or may be other SoC or Devices, and is not at all dependent on SPEAr.

-- 
viresh