On 14 April 2016 at 21:17, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Use pwm_get/set_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx
> field. Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support
> atomic update.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
>
> --->8---
> virtual patch
>
> @@
> struct pwm_device *p;
> expression e;
> @@
> (
> -(p)->polarity = e;
> +pwm_set_polarity(p, e);
> |
> -(p)->polarity
> +pwm_get_polarity(p)
> |
> -(p)->period = e;
> +pwm_set_period(p, e);
> |
> -(p)->period
> +pwm_get_period(p)
> |
> -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
> +pwm_set_duty_cycle(p, e);
> |
> -(p)->duty_cycle
> +pwm_get_duty_cycle(p)
> )
> --->8---
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 2 +-
> drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c | 2 +-
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
> index 9861fed..19dc64c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
> @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ static int lpc18xx_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> LPC18XX_PWM_EVSTATEMSK(lpc18xx_data->duty_event),
> LPC18XX_PWM_EVSTATEMSK_ALL);
>
> - if (pwm->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) {
> + if (pwm_get_polarity(pwm) == PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) {
> set_event = lpc18xx_pwm->period_event;
> clear_event = lpc18xx_data->duty_event;
> res_action = LPC18XX_PWM_RES_SET;
For the lpc18xx-sct part:
Acked-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@xxxxxxxxx>
regards,
Joachim Eastwood
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
