On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:48:01 -0700
Dmitry Torokhov [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Boris,

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:59PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

pwm_config/enable/disable() have been deprecated and should be replaced
by pwm_apply_state().

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
---
 drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
index cf6aac0..aef7dc4 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c

@@ -70,13 +70,16 @@ struct max77693_haptic {
 
 static int max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 {
+	struct pwm_state pstate;
 	struct pwm_args pargs = { };
-	int delta;
 	int error;
 
 	pwm_get_args(haptic->pwm_dev, &pargs);
-	delta = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
-	error = pwm_config(haptic->pwm_dev, delta, pargs.period);
+	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
+
+	pstate.period = pargs.period;
+	pstate.duty_cycle = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
+	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);

This does not make sense with regard to the atomic API. If you look in
max77693_haptic_play_work(), right after calling
max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle() we either try to enable or disable the
pwm. When switching to this new API we should combine both actions.

True. I'll address that, unless Thierry is fine keeping the non-atomic
API, in which case I'll just drop patches 32 to 46.

quoted

 	if (error) {
 		dev_err(haptic->dev, "failed to configure pwm: %d\n", error);
 		return error;

@@ -161,12 +164,16 @@ static int max77693_haptic_lowsys(struct max77693_haptic *haptic, bool enable)
 
 static void max77693_haptic_enable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 {
+	struct pwm_state pstate;
 	int error;
 
 	if (haptic->enabled)
 		return;
 
-	error = pwm_enable(haptic->pwm_dev);
+	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
+	pstate.enabled = true;
+
+	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);

As I mentioned I'd rather we did not deprecate pwm_enable() and
pwm_disable() (and maybe others), as it forces us to add unnecessary
boilerplate code to the drivers.
 

quoted

 	if (error) {
 		dev_err(haptic->dev,
 			"failed to enable haptic pwm device: %d\n", error);

@@ -188,11 +195,13 @@ static void max77693_haptic_enable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 err_enable_config:
 	max77693_haptic_lowsys(haptic, false);
 err_enable_lowsys:
-	pwm_disable(haptic->pwm_dev);
+	pstate.enabled = false;
+	pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
 }
 
 static void max77693_haptic_disable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 {
+	struct pwm_state pstate;
 	int error;
 
 	if (!haptic->enabled)

@@ -206,7 +215,9 @@ static void max77693_haptic_disable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 	if (error)
 		goto err_disable_lowsys;
 
-	pwm_disable(haptic->pwm_dev);
+	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
+	pstate.enabled = false;
+	pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);

Same here.

quoted

 	haptic->enabled = false;
 
 	return;
-- 
2.5.0

Thanks.

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com