On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 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.
It's quite alright to do that. As a matter of fact you already do the
same within the .probe() callback to set things up.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpdpMULX3fIQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
