On Tuesday 18 of June 2013 23:40:23 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:41:09PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Monday 17 of June 2013 22:29:11 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:18:13PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > > +struct samsung_pwm_channel {
> > > > + unsigned long period_ns;
> > > > + unsigned long duty_ns;
> > > > + unsigned long tin_ns;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct samsung_pwm_chip {
> > > > + struct pwm_chip chip;
> > > > + struct samsung_pwm_variant variant;
> > > > + struct samsung_pwm_channel channels[SAMSUNG_PWM_NUM];
> > >
> > > The new driver for Renesas did something similar, but I want to
> > > discourage storing per-channel data within the chip structure.
> > >
> > > The PWM framework provides a way to store this information along
> > > with
> > > the PWM device (see pwm_{set,get}_chip_data()).
> >
> > OK, this looks good, but in my case is not really useful. I need to
> > access those channel data in my suspend/resume callbacks and
> > obviously I don't have access to any pwm_device there. Any
> > suggestions?
>
> You do have access to the struct pwm_chip, and that already has an array
> of struct pwm_devices, so you could obtain the driver-specific data
> from those (see pwm_chip.pwms).
Well, if it's legal to access internals of pwm_chip from PWM drivers then
there is no problem. Based on other subsystems, like regulators or clocks
I have concluded that this structure should be dereferenced only inside
PWM core.
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
