On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:04:30PM +0800, caesar wrote:
[...]
> As you say, I will rewrite the about if it's really need do so it.
> For example:
>
> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> .regs = {
> .duty = 0x04,
> .period = 0x08,
> .cntr = 0x00,
> .ctrl = 0x0c,
> },
> .prescaler = 2,
> .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> };
>
> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> .regs = {
> .duty = 0x08,
> .period = 0x04,
> .cntr = 0x00,
> .ctrl = 0x0c,
> },
> .prescaler = 1,
> .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> };
>
> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> .regs = {
> .duty = 0x08,
> .period = 0x04,
> .cntr = 0x0c,
> .ctrl = 0x00,
> },
> .prescaler = 1,
> .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> };
>
> Is that right?
Yes.
> >>+ .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> >>+};
> >No need for the double indirection.
>
> Sorry, I think is need if you mean a double indirection for ".set_enable".
The "double indirection" was regarding the symbolic names for registers,
not the .set_enable(). Sorry.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgp_srKW5FsL_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
