On Thursday 13 of June 2013 22:14:19 Heiko St?bner wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 5. Juni 2013, 23:18:13 schrieb Tomasz Figa:

quoted

This patch introduces new Samsung PWM driver, which uses Samsung
PWM/timer master driver to control shared parts of the hardware.

Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <redacted>
---

 drivers/pwm/Makefile      |   1 +
 drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c | 528

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 529
insertions(+)

 create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile

[...]

quoted

+static int pwm_samsung_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+	struct samsung_pwm_chip *chip;
+	struct resource *res;
+	int ret;
+
+	chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (chip == NULL) {
+		dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate driver data\n");
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+	chip->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
+	chip->chip.ops = &pwm_samsung_ops;
+	chip->chip.base = -1;
+	chip->chip.npwm = SAMSUNG_PWM_NUM;
+
+	if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
+		ret = pwm_samsung_parse_dt(chip);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
+
+		chip->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
+		chip->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
+	} else {
+		if (!pdev->dev.platform_data) {
+			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no platform data 

specified\n");

quoted

+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+
+		memcpy(&chip->variant, pdev->dev.platform_data,
+							sizeof(chip-

variant));

quoted

+	}
+
+	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
+	if (!res) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get mem resource\n");
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+	chip->base = devm_request_and_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res);
+	if (!chip->base) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to request and map 

registers\n");

quoted

+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+	chip->base_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "timers");
+	if (IS_ERR(chip->base_clk)) {
+		dev_err(dev, "failed to get timer base clk\n");
+		return PTR_ERR(chip->base_clk);
+	}
+	clk_prepare_enable(chip->base_clk);
+
+	chip->tclk0 = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "pwm-tclk0");
+	chip->tclk1 = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "pwm-tclk1");
+
+	ret = pwmchip_add(&chip->chip);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(dev, "failed to register pwm\n");
+		goto err_clk_disable;
+	}
+
+	dev_info(dev, "base_clk at %lu, tclk0 at %lu, tclk1 at %lu\n",
+		clk_get_rate(chip->base_clk),
+		!IS_ERR(chip->tclk0) ? clk_get_rate(chip->tclk0) : 0,
+		!IS_ERR(chip->tclk1) ? clk_get_rate(chip->tclk1) : 0);

hmm, these values simply tell some internal state of the pwm, so
wouldn't a dev_dbg be more appropriate?

Hmm, I have kept it as dev_info as in old driver, but now as you say it, 
dev_dbg might be more appropriate indeed, as it isn't really anything 
important that users should know...

Best regards,
Tomasz

quoted

+
+	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chip);
+
+	return 0;
+
+err_clk_disable:
+	clk_disable_unprepare(chip->base_clk);
+
+	return ret;
+}