On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:15:43PM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
>>> +
>>> + /* There is polarity support in HW but it is easier to manage in SW */
>>> + if (pwm->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
>>> + duty_ns = period_ns - duty_ns;
>>
>> No, this is wrong. You're not actually changing the *polarity* here.
>
> Please elaborate. I don't understand what is wrong here.
>
> Does polarity influence the output while a PWM is disabled?
>
>>> +static int kona_pwmc_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>> + enum pwm_polarity polarity)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * The framework only allows the polarity to be changed when a PWM is
>>> + * disabled so no immediate action is required here. When a channel is
>>> + * enabled, the polarity gets handled as part of the re-config step.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> See above. If you don't want to implement the hardware support for
>> inversed polarity, then simply don't implement this.
>
> I had originally planned to omit polarity support but because it
> affects the binding (which is treated as ABI), it wouldn't be possible
> to add it in later without defining a new compatible string.
I would like to get this right but it occurred to me that there may be
a way to defer the implementation of this feature without disrupting
the binding.
Would it be acceptable to continue using #pwm-cells = <3> and
of_pwm_xlate_with_flags but return -EINVAL from kona_pwmc_set_polarity
if PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED is specified?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
