Hi,
On 6/11/20 11:37 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:18:36PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Implement the pwm_ops.get_state() method to complete the support for the
new atomic PWM API.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
index 58c7e9ef7278..6c75a3470bc8 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
@@ -114,8 +114,37 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
return 0;
}
+static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+ struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip);
+ struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev;
+ unsigned int clk_div, clk_div_reg, duty_cycle_reg;
+ int error;
+
+ error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, &clk_div_reg);
+ if (error) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", error);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, &duty_cycle_reg);
+ if (error) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", error);
+ return;
+ }
I assume that duty_cycle_reg cannot be bigger than 0xff? Would it make
sense to mask the value accordingly to get more robust code?
+ clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1;
+
+ state->period = clk_div * NSEC_PER_MHZ * 256 / PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ;
+ state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period / PWM_MAX_LEVEL;
+ state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
+ state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
These aligned = look strange (IMHO). If you don't feel strong here I'd
like to see a single space before a =.
Ok, will change for the next version.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
