Hi Boris,
Am Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2015, 10:21:59 schrieb Boris Brezillon:
> Implement the ->apply() function to add support for atomic update.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> @@ -110,6 +113,26 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip
> *chip, writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> }
>
> +static void rockchip_pwm_init_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device
> *pwm) +{
> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> + PWM_CONTINUOUS;
> + u32 val;
> +
> + val = readl(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +
> + if ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf)
> + return;
> +
> + pwm->state.enabled = true;
> +
> + enable_conf = PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
> +
> + if ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf)
> + pwm->state.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
the inactive setting does not affect the polarity of the running pwm, only what
to do when it gets turned off. Also PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE is the "0" value for the
bit so also is bad to compare against (and results in wrong readings). So I
would suggest changing this like
- enable_conf = PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
+ enable_conf = PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE;
- if ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf)
+ if ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf)
> +}
> +
> static void rockchip_pwm_init_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> struct pwm_device *pwm)
> {
Heiko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
