On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:09:00AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add support for SAM9X60's PWM controller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c
> index 647d063562db..229cedb02770 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@
>
> /* Only the LSB 16 bits are significant. */
> #define PWM_MAXV1_PRD 0xFFFF
> +/* All 32 bits are significant. */
> +#define PWM_MAXV2_PRD 0xFFFFFFFF
> #define PRD_MAXV1_PRES 10
>
> struct atmel_pwm_registers {
> @@ -311,6 +313,20 @@ static const struct atmel_pwm_data atmel_pwm_data_v2 = {
> },
> };
>
> +static const struct atmel_pwm_data atmel_pwm_data_v3 = {
Does it make more sense to call this ..._sam9x60 to match the
compatible? (If yes, patch 1 should be changed accordingly.)
I wonder how the naming of the defines is chosen given that pwm_data_v3
is the first that needs PWM_MAXV2_PRD. Looks inconsistent.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
