On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Péter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 06:50 PM, Grazvydas Ignotas wrote:
>>> + if (pwm->hwpwm) {
>>> + /* PWM 1 */
>>> + mask = TWL4030_GPIO7_VIBRASYNC_PWM1_MASK;
>>> + bits = TWL4030_GPIO7_VIBRASYNC_PWM1_PWM1;
>>> + } else {
>>> + /* PWM 0 */
>>> + mask = TWL4030_GPIO6_PWM0_MUTE_MASK;
>>> + bits = TWL4030_GPIO6_PWM0_MUTE_PWM0;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Save the current MUX configuration for the PWM */
>>> + twl->twl4030_pwm_mux &= ~mask;
>>> + twl->twl4030_pwm_mux |= (val & mask);
>>
>> Do we really need this mask clearing here? After probe twl4030_pwm_mux
>> should be zero, and if twl4030_pwm_request is called twice you don't
>> clear the important bits before |=, I think 'twl4030_pwm_mux = val &
>> mask' would be better here.
>
> I'm storing both PWM's state in the same variable, but in different offsets:
> PWM0: bits 2-3
> PWM1: bits 4-5
> Probably it is over engineering to clear the relevant bits in the backup
> storage, but better to be safe IMHO.
> I would leave this part as it is.
Oh, it should be good then.
--
Gražvydas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
