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