Hi caesar.
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014, 10:13:55 schrieb caesar:
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> + PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable) +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> + PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >
> > not sure if I'm just blind ... do rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 and
> > rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop differ at all?
> >
> > If they don't differ, I guess pwm_data_vop should just use
> > rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 instead of duplicating it.
> >
>
> Yes, the rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1 & v2 & vop is similar.
>
> So my v2 patch use "u32 enable_conf" instead of it .
> +struct rockchip_pwm_data {
>
> > + .........
> > + u32 enable_conf;
> > +};
>
> The thierry has suggested it [1] in my v2 patch:
>
> For this I think it would be more readable to provide function pointers
> rather than a variable. That is:
>
> struct rockchip_pwm_data {
> ...
> int (*enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm);
> int (*disable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm);
> };
> Then you can implement these for each variant of the chip and call them
> from the common rockchip_pwm_enable(), somewhat like this.
>
>
> Perhaps,thierry's suggestion I got it wrong.
Using the function pointers like Thierry suggested looks nice, so no I don't
think you got it wrong :-)
What I meant was to simply reuse the existing function
rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 when there is _no_ difference at all to
rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop, like
static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};
static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
.regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
.regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};
Heiko
>
> Hi thierry& Heiko :-)
> Maybe,could you suggest solve it reasonable? thanks.
>
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113
>
> >> +
> >>
> >> static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device
> >>
> >> *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> @@ -52,20 +126,20 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm, * default prescaler value for all practical clock
> >> rate values.
> >>
> >> */
> >>
> >> div = clk_rate * period_ns;
> >>
> >> - do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >> + do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >>
> >> period = div;
> >>
> >> div = clk_rate * duty_ns;
> >>
> >> - do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >> + do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >>
> >> duty = div;
> >>
> >> ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
> >> if (ret)
> >>
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> - writel(period, pc->base + PWM_LRC);
> >> - writel(duty, pc->base + PWM_HRC);
> >> - writel(0, pc->base + PWM_CNTR);
> >> + writel(period, pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
> >> + writel(duty, pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
> >> + writel(0, pc->base + pc->data->regs.cntr);
> >>
> >> clk_disable(pc->clk);
> >>
> >> @@ -76,15 +150,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm) {
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> - u32 val;
> >>
> >> ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
> >> if (ret)
> >>
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> - val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> - val |= PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> >> - writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> + pc->data->set_enable(chip, true);
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -92,11 +163,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm) static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) {
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >>
> >> - u32 val;
> >>
> >> - val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> - val &= ~(PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN);
> >> - writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> + pc->data->set_enable(chip, false);
> >>
> >> clk_disable(pc->clk);
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -108,12 +176,52 @@ static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = {
> >>
> >> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_v1},
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_v2},
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_vop},
> >> + { /* sentinel */ }
> >> +};
> >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
> >> +
> >>
> >> static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> {
> >>
> >> + const struct of_device_id *id;
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
> >> struct resource *r;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> + id = of_match_device(rockchip_pwm_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> >> + if (!id)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >>
> >> pc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> if (!pc)
> >>
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> @@ -133,6 +241,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >>
> >> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
> >>
> >> + pc->data = id->data;
> >>
> >> pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> >> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
> >> pc->chip.base = -1;
> >>
> >> @@ -156,12 +265,6 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_remove(struct
> >> platform_device
> >> *pdev) return pwmchip_remove(&pc->chip);
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> >> - { .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm" },
> >> - { /* sentinel */ }
> >> -};
> >> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
> >> -
> >>
> >> static struct platform_driver rockchip_pwm_driver = {
> >>
> >> .driver = {
> >>
> >> .name = "rockchip-pwm",
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
