On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 08:24:26AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:20:06 -0700 Brian Norris [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
quoted
@@ -75,6 +77,19 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip,
writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
}
+static void rockchip_pwm_get_state_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+ struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+ struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
+ u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
+ u32 val;
+
+ val = readl(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
Nit: I just noticed you've been starting to use readl()/writel() in this
series, where previously {readl,writel}_relaxed() were being used. Any
reason?
Because I'm lazy and usually don't take the time to think whether it's
safe of not to use the _relaxed() versions :-). Not sure you'll have a
noticeable improvement by using _relaxed() for a PWM device by the
way, but I can change that ;-).
I just figured consistency would be nice.
Brian