On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 06:22:33PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 09/24/2012 05:56 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:55:38AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On 09/24/2012 02:37 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >>> A very simple binding, the only property is the phandle to the PWM. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Acked-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/pwm-beeper.txt | 7 +++++++ > >>> drivers/input/misc/pwm-beeper.c | 11 ++++++++++- > >>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/pwm-beeper.txt > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/pwm-beeper.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/pwm-beeper.txt > >>> new file mode 100644 > >>> index 0000000..7388b82 > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/pwm-beeper.txt > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ > >>> +* PWM beeper device tree bindings > >>> + > >>> +Registers a PWM device as beeper. > >>> + > >>> +Required properties: > >>> +- compatible: should be "pwm-beeper" > >>> +- pwms: phandle to the physical pwm device > >>> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/pwm-beeper.c b/drivers/input/misc/pwm-beeper.c > >>> index fc84c8a..a6aa48c 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/input/misc/pwm-beeper.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/pwm-beeper.c > >>> @@ -75,7 +75,10 @@ static int __devinit pwm_beeper_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>> if (!beeper) > >>> return -ENOMEM; > >>> > >>> - beeper->pwm = pwm_request(pwm_id, "pwm beeper"); > >>> + if (pdev->dev.platform_data) > >>> + beeper->pwm = pwm_request(pwm_id, "pwm beeper"); > >>> + else > >>> + beeper->pwm = pwm_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); > > > > Hmm, pwm_id == 0 is a valid ID I think, but your change makes it go into > > DT branch, potentially breaking it. My bad, I missed that platform_data is casted to an unsigned long. I thought I would test for a pointer. The obvious clean way would be to use a pointer for platform_data, but given that this will vanish anyway soon, I think we could just test for existence of dev->of_node instead of dev->platform_data. > > Yes, this a bit tricky, but we only have a single in-tree user of the > pwm-beeper which uses a id != 0. And now that all the PWM providers have > been converted to the new generic PWM framework the old legacy API will go > away soon anyway. So this if () else branch should hopefully only be > necessary for a transitional period of 1-2 releases. So I think this change > should be OK. > > But I think the patch is missing a change to the Kconfig entry to allow the > driver to be selected if the generic PWM framework is available. > > --- a/drivers/input/misc/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/Kconfig > @@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ config INPUT_PCF8574 > > config INPUT_PWM_BEEPER > tristate "PWM beeper support" > - depends on HAVE_PWM > + depends on HAVE_PWM || PWM Is this the preferred way to do this? Instead of doing the above I added a 'select HAVE_PWM' to the pwm framework instead. I found a patch for that, but there were comments to it that this is not good Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
