[PATCH v4 09/10] pwm: Add PXA support
From: Thierry Reding <hidden>
Date: 2012-03-16 08:29:34
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-tegra
* Shawn Guo wrote:
quoted hunk
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 04:56:32PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:quoted
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <redacted> --- Changes in v3: - update PWM ops for changes in patch 2 arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile | 1 - arch/arm/plat-pxa/pwm.c | 304 -------------------------------------------- drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 9 ++ drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 + drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.c | 244 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 305 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm/plat-pxa/pwm.c create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.cThe patch should be generated with "git format-patch -M", so that we can see the diff like below.--- a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/pwm.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.c
Yes, Arnd already mentioned that in the last round but I forgot. It usually takes me a couple of weeks to prepare the next version and I try to keep a list of TODOs but that doesn't seem to be efficient enough yet.
-int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
+static int pxa_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ int duty_ns, int period_ns)
{
+ struct pxa_pwm_chip *pc = to_pxa_pwm_chip(chip);
unsigned long long c;
unsigned long period_cycles, prescale, pv, dc;
+ unsigned long offset;
- if (pwm == NULL || period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns)
+ if (period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns)
return -EINVAL;
Then I will have a question why "pwm == NULL" check is removed?Actually, as I mentioned in another mail the idea was to put these kinds of checks into the core. They are still missing from the core, though. Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120316/208f5b30/attachment-0001.sig>