Hi Boris,
在 2017/8/4 15:09, Boris Brezillon 写道:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 10:38:26 +0800
"David.Wu" <david.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Boris，
在 2017/8/2 19:40, Boris Brezillon 写道:
Yep, just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), each of them
implementing ->apply() and ->get_state() and that's all.
Something like:
static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = {
.get_state = rockchip_pwm_v1_get_state,
.apply = rockchip_pwm_v1_apply,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};
static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 = {
.get_state = rockchip_pwm_v2_get_state,
.apply = rockchip_pwm_v2_apply,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};
static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_vop = {
.get_state = rockchip_pwm_vop_get_state,
.apply = rockchip_pwm_vop_apply,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};
static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 },
{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 },
{ .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_vop },
{ /* sentinel */ }
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
I think we should keep the data members in the rockchip_pwm_data，like
supports_polarity and regs...
The supports_polarity is needed for of_pwm_n_cells when pwm registered.
And the other data members is helpful for us to use common code.
It's okay for just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), but
they are with other data members in the struct of rockchip_pwm_data.
I think we could even get rid of the other fields in rockchip_pwm_data,
but ok, let's do that.
I use the same pwm ops for each IP at V3's patch, but defined 3
different rockchip_pwm_data for use. I think this might look more clean.
--
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
