Doug,
在 2014年08月07日 11:26, Doug Anderson 写道:
caesar,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
在 2014年08月07日 10:16, Doug Anderson 写道:
Caesar,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug,
在 2014年08月07日 06:46, Doug Anderson 写道:
Caesar,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang
<caesar.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
+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,
Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here? If so, that's super
confusing and deserves a comment. AKA, I think the above should not
be:
+ .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
+ .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
...but should be
+ .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
+ .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2. In fact, I'd suggest that you
totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
Sorry,I think it's no problem. the "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
"rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .
OK, I looked up in the TRM. Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
the vop. So I think that the only change you need is to add:
#define PWM_VOP_CTRL 0x00
#define PWM_VOP_CNTR 0x0c
...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.
As you have the code written right now it's very confusing. The new
#defines will fix this.
yeah, I think they can be used in the same context.
I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need.
I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then it's
really his decision.
I remember In patch v2 [1],Thierry suggests me to fix it so if I have no
to get wrong.
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113
--
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
