* Thierry Reding wrote:
> * Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:06:41AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > * Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > > > The clock and regulator APIs namespace the consumers by struct device -
> > > > might this not be sensible here? pwm_get() does already take the device
> > > > as an argument. It'd feel safer, and for example there's plenty of
> > > > phones out there with two backlit displays...
> >
> > > That's actually how this is supposed to work. "pwm-backlight" in the above
> > > case is matched against the name of the struct device that you pass in to
> > > pwm_get(). The only difference, at least as far as I can tell, to the clock
> > > and regulator APIs is that a second name is not listed explicitly in the
> > > lookup table.
> >
> > Both clock and regulator APIs map (source) -> (dev, name). This only
> > has a mapping (source) -> (dev).
> >
> > > So compared with the clock and regulator APIs it doesn't make too much sense
> > > to pass both the struct device and the name to pwm_get() because it will
> > > match the device name against the consumer name in the lookup table first and
> > > only use the passed name if no match was found.
> >
> > This is different to what the clock and regulator APIs do - they look up
> > the name in the context of the struct device. This is because...
> >
> > > In case you have two backlight devices I would expect the following to work:
> >
> > > static struct pwm_lookup board_pwm_lookup[] = {
> > > PWM_LOOKUP("tegra-pwm", 0, "pwm-backlight.0"),
> > > PWM_LOOKUP("tegra-pwm", 1, "pwm-backlight.1"),
> > > };
> >
> > ...if a single device uses more than one PWM then the above scheme won't
> > work - unless I'm missing something?
>
> Right, now it makes more sense. So basically if I have a single device using
> two PWM devices, then I'll need to have something like this:
>
> static struct pwm_lookup board_pwm_lookup[] = {
> PWM_LOOKUP("tegra-pwm", 0, "pwm-foo.0", "bar"),
> PWM_LOOKUP("tegra-pwm", 1, "pwm-foo.0", "baz"),
> };
>
> And then of course I'll need to have a second field by which the PWM device
> can be identified. Good, I'll fix that up for the next round.
I've been thinking about this some more, and I can see this becoming a little
problem with the DT bindings because the unified pwm_get() always requests
the first PWM specified in the "pwms" property.
The best solution that I could come up with is to not pass the index into the
of_pwm_request() function but rather forward the consumer name as passed into
pwm_get(). The of_pwm_request() could use the "pwm-names" property to do a
reverse lookup of the index and request that. One good thing about that would
be that I no longer need to export the of_pwm_request() function. The "bad"
thing is that it'll make the "pwm-names" property mandatory if more than a
single PWM is requested.
Does that sound reasonable?
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpCEMUkUkB1o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
