Dear Mike Dunn,
> On 09/04/2013 07:35 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Mike Dunn,
> >
> >> On 09/03/2013 03:20 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >>>> +/* use the platform_device id table for OF match table data */
> >>>> +static struct of_device_id pwm_of_match[] = {
> >>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa25x-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[0]
},
> >>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa27x-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[1]
},
> >>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa168-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[2]
},
> >>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa910-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[3]
},
> >>>> + { }
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pwm_of_match);
> >>>
> >>> Are PXA2xx and PXA3xx PWM impleemntations not all the same ? If so, why
> >>> not just stick with pxa25x-pwm only for all of the CPUs (aka. the
> >>> lowest CPU model). Then the table would have but a single entry.
> >>
> >> I'm just echoing the existing platform_device_id table...
> >>
> >> static const struct platform_device_id pwm_id_table[] = {
> >>
> >> /* PWM has_secondary_pwm? */
> >> { "pxa25x-pwm", 0 },
> >> { "pxa27x-pwm", HAS_SECONDARY_PWM },
> >> { "pxa168-pwm", 0 },
> >> { "pxa910-pwm", 0 },
> >> { },
> >>
> >> };
> >> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, pwm_id_table);
> >>
> >> ... so that my changes to the driver are minimal. Yes, apparently the
> >> only difference is the existance of a "secondary" pwm for pxa27x.
> >>
> >> BTW, the pxa27x actually has four pwms, which is why the addition I made
> >> to pxa27x.dtsi has two nodes (the driver handles two pwms for each
> >> device instance in the pxa27x case).
> >
> > What's that "secondary PWM" there? I no longer remember, sorry.
>
> If pdev->id_entry->driver_data == HAS_SECONDARY_PWM, then pwm_chip->npwm=2
> when pwmchip_add() is called. Otherwise pwm_chip->npwm=1. The driver
> knows that the second pwm's registers are at a fixed offset from the
> first. For compatibility, the pxa27x maps the registers for the third pwm
> at a distant offset, and makes the offset between 3 and 4 the same as
> between 1 and 2. Yes, the driver mkes this unnecessarily complicated.
> There should just be one device instance per pwm, and dispense with the
> whole driver_data thing. I guess there's some history there.
OK, I checked the datasheet. The register block for PWM<n + 2> is at offset of
0x10 from PWM<n> , for n in {0, 1} .
Why can we not just register four PWM blocks, each with 0x10 register window
size then? I know there's history (maybe), but then, with DT, this might go
away.
> > The question
> > remains still, we can have two entries there (pxa25x and pxa27x) ORR have
> > one entry (pxa25x) + mrvl,has-secondary-pwm entry.
>
> It looks like defining "compatible" properties that mirror the old
> platform_device_id names won't fly...
Yes of course, this won't work. I didn't know the layout exactly.
> wildcards are verboten (see Sergei's
> comment). So your inclination to use one value for the "compatible"
> property is correct. I think the way to go is to forget the whole
> HAS_SECONDARY_PWM in the DT case, have one device instance per pwm, and
> use "compatible=marvell,pwm". Other suggestions welcome.
compatbile=marvell,pxa25x-pwm , no ? The lowest CPU with the block.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
