On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:55:10 -0700
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/30, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > @@ -74,6 +74,23 @@ enum pwm_polarity {
> > PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED,
> > };
> >
> > +/**
> > + * struct pwm_args - PWM arguments
> > + * @period: reference period
> > + * @polarity: reference polarity
> > + *
> > + * This structure describe board-dependent arguments attached to a PWM
>
> s/describe/describes/
>
> > + * device. Those arguments are usually retrieved from the PWM lookup table or
> > + * DT definition.
> > + * This should not be confused with the PWM state: PWM args not representing
>
> s/not representing/don't represent/ ?
Yes, I meant "are not representing", but "don't represent" is fine.
>
> > + * the current PWM state, but the configuration the PWM user plan to use
>
> s/plan/plans/
>
> > + * on this PWM device.
> > + */
> > +struct pwm_args {
> > + unsigned int period;
> > + enum pwm_polarity polarity;
> > +};
> > +
>
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
