Caesar,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> + .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
> + .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> + .prescaler = PRESCALER,
> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> + .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here? If so, that's super
confusing and deserves a comment. AKA, I think the above should not
be:
+ .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
+ .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
...but should be
+ .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
+ .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2. In fact, I'd suggest that you
totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
Have you validated Thierry's suggestion to allow you to access your
memory range?
-Doug
--
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
