Hi Boris?
? 2017/8/2 19:40, Boris Brezillon ??:
> Yep, just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), each of them
> implementing ->apply() and ->get_state() and that's all.
>
> Something like:
>
> static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = {
> .get_state = rockchip_pwm_v1_get_state,
> .apply = rockchip_pwm_v1_apply,
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> };
>
> static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> .get_state = rockchip_pwm_v2_get_state,
> .apply = rockchip_pwm_v2_apply,
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> };
>
> static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_vop = {
> .get_state = rockchip_pwm_vop_get_state,
> .apply = rockchip_pwm_vop_apply,
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> };
>
> static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 },
> { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 },
> { .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_vop },
> { /* sentinel */ }
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
I think we should keep the data members in the rockchip_pwm_data?like
supports_polarity and regs...
The supports_polarity is needed for of_pwm_n_cells when pwm registered.
And the other data members is helpful for us to use common code.
It's okay for just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), but
they are with other data members in the struct of rockchip_pwm_data.
