On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:09:46AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 18/03/2014 at 16:02:51 -0700, Bryan Wu wrote : > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Alexandre Belloni > > <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Set inversed polarity when .active_low is set in the platform_data. With device > > > tree, this is taken care of by of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(), called from > > > of_pwm_get(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 5 +++++ > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c > > > index 605047428b5a..09681556a6aa 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c > > > @@ -180,6 +180,11 @@ static int led_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > led_dat->cdev.max_brightness = cur_led->max_brightness; > > > led_dat->cdev.flags |= LED_CORE_SUSPENDRESUME; > > > > > > + if (led_dat->active_low) > > > > Why .active_low needs to inverse PWM polarity? In > > of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(), it checked with PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED in > > args. Moreover in of_pwm_simple_xlate() and pxa_pwm_of_xlate(), we > > didn't inverse PWM polarity at all. > > > > Yeah, exactly, there is no issue when using device tree. What I'm trying > to fix here is th non-DT case where of_pwm_xlate_with_flags() is not > called. The goal here would be to move to a common interface, irrespective of whether DT or platform code was used to instantiate a device. So like I mentioned in a reply to another patch of yours, I think a better approach would be to provide a mechanism to specify the PWMs polarity within the PWM lookup table. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpU08T9W12Jk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
