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 =.
Unrelated to your series I think we should change .get_state() to return
an error indication.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
