Re: [PATCH v3 08/20] pwm: Add PWM Capture support
From: Thierry Reding <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-10 13:53:08
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-pwm, lkml
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 10:21:23AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Supply a PWM Capture call-back Op in order to pass back information obtained by running analysis on PWM a signal. This would normally (at least during testing) be called from the Sysfs routines with a view to printing out PWM Capture data which has been encoded into a string. Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted> --- drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/pwm.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+)diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c index dba3843..4678de6 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c@@ -525,6 +525,33 @@ int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, struct pwm_state *state) EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_apply_state); /** + * pwm_capture() - capture and report a PWM signal + * @pwm: PWM device + * @result: struct to fill with capture result + * @timeout_ms: time to wait, in milliseconds, before giving up on capture + * + * Returns: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure. + */ +int pwm_capture(struct pwm_device *pwm, struct pwm_capture *result, + unsigned int timeout_ms) +{ + int err; + + if (!pwm || !pwm->chip->ops) + return -EINVAL; + + if (!pwm->chip->ops->capture) + return -ENOSYS; + + mutex_lock(&pwm_lock); + err = pwm->chip->ops->capture(pwm->chip, pwm, result, timeout_ms); + mutex_unlock(&pwm_lock); + + return err; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_capture); + +/** * pwm_adjust_config() - adjust the current PWM config to the PWM arguments * @pwm: PWM device *diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h index 17018f3..13cac27 100644 --- a/include/linux/pwm.h +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ #include <linux/mutex.h> #include <linux/of.h> +struct pwm_capture; struct seq_file; + struct pwm_chip; /**@@ -153,6 +155,7 @@ static inline void pwm_get_args(const struct pwm_device *pwm, * @free: optional hook for freeing a PWM * @config: configure duty cycles and period length for this PWM * @set_polarity: configure the polarity of this PWM + * @capture: capture and report PWM signal * @enable: enable PWM output toggling * @disable: disable PWM output toggling * @apply: atomically apply a new PWM config. The state argument@@ -172,6 +175,8 @@ struct pwm_ops { int duty_ns, int period_ns); int (*set_polarity)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity); + int (*capture)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + struct pwm_capture *result, unsigned int timeout_ms);
Can we please drop the _ms suffix. It's already documented to be in milliseconds. Also maybe make that unsigned long for consistency with the type of the timeout parameter elsewhere in the kernel.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
int (*enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm); void (*disable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm); int (*apply)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,@@ -212,6 +217,16 @@ struct pwm_chip { bool can_sleep; }; +/** + * struct pwm_capture - PWM capture data + * @period: period of the PWM signal (in nanoseconds) + * @duty_cycle: duty cycle of the PWM signal (in nanoseconds) + */ +struct pwm_capture { + unsigned long long period; + unsigned long long duty_cycle; +};
I'd prefer these to be unsigned int, for symmetry with the PWM output part of the framework. With 32 bits you get about 4.2 seconds of period and duty cycle, and I doubt that any reasonable signal would extend beyond that.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -322,6 +337,9 @@ static inline void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm) /* PWM provider APIs */ +int pwm_capture(struct pwm_device *pwm, + struct pwm_capture *result, + unsigned int timeout_ms);
This fits into 2 lines. And same comments on the timeout parameter.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
int pwm_set_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm, void *data); void *pwm_get_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm);@@ -373,6 +391,13 @@ static inline int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, return -EINVAL; } +static inline int pwm_capture(struct pwm_device *pwm, + struct pwm_capture *result, + unsigned int timeout_ms)
Same here. Otherwise this looks really nice to me from an API point of view. Thierry
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 819 bytes