On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 08:24:26AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:20:06 -0700 Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > @@ -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
--
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
