On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:05:20AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:07AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
[...]
> >> @@ -74,10 +78,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
> >> {
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> - PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE |
> >> - PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> + PWM_CONTINUOUS;
> >> u32 val;
> >>
> >> + if (pc->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> >> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
> >> + else
> >> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >
> > I have a feeling you're going to answer the above question with: "Because
> > it's needed here". If so, my reply would be: "Then this function should
> > take a struct pwm_device instead of struct pwm_chip."
>
> OK. I've chosen to have it take a pwm_device AND a pwm_chip. It is a
> little redundant because a pwm_device has a pointer to its pwm_chip,
> but it follows the lead of all of the callbacks in "struct pwm_ops".
> If you'd like me to spin it to take only a pwm_device I'm happy to.
No, that's fine.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpedT2ot6iKp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
