On 09/24/2012 08:49 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > 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. I think the plan is to convert the existing board file platforms to pwm_table and then remove the old pwm_request API. So this wouldn't work too well if we'd test for of_node. Maybe we can just run pwm_get unconditionally and fallback to pwm_request if it failed. That's also what the PWM backlight driver currently does. > >> >> 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 > Thierry said that this is his preferred solution. Given that HAVE_PWM will be extinct soon anyway I think it is fine. - Lars -- 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
