> > +menuconfig PWM_DEVICES
> > + bool "PWM devices"
> > + default y
> > + ---help---
> > + Say Y here to get to see options for device drivers from
> various
> > + different categories. This option alone does not add any kernel
> code.
> > +
> > + If you say N, all options in this submenu will be skipped and
> disabled.
> > +
>
> Shouldn't PWM_DEVICES select HAVE_PWM?
No not required, the entire concept is to remove HAVE_PWM and use PWM_CORE.
> > +struct pwm_dev_info {
> > + struct pwm_device *pwm_dev;
> > + struct list_head list;
> > +};
> > +static struct pwm_dev_info *di;
>
> Why not embed the list head into pwm_device. That would certainly make
> pwm_device_unregister much simpler.
pwm_device will be passed to each and every pwm driver that are registered as client with pwm core.
The list consists of the registered pwm drivers and is to be handled by pwm core.
Why should each and every pwm driver get to know about the entire pwm driver list?
And also since the pwm_request/register/unregister are the one which require this list having this list inst in local/static device information structure seems to be right.
> > + }
> > + pwm->pwm_dev = pwm_dev;
> > + list_add_tail(&pwm->list, &di->list);
> > + up_write(&pwm_list_lock);
> > +
>
> I guess you only need to lock the list when accessing the list and
> adding the new
> pwm_dev.
Oops, thanks for pointing out, will implement this in the v2 patch.
> > +struct pwm_ops {
> > + int (*pwm_config)(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int
> period_ns);
> > + int (*pwm_enable)(struct pwm_device *pwm);
> > + int (*pwm_disable)(struct pwm_device *pwm);
> > + char *name;
> > +};
> > +
>
> Shouldn't name be part of the pwm_device? That would allow the ops to
> be shared
> between different devices.
Good catch, the reason being that 2 or more devices can share the same ops and get registered to pwm core.
But the catch lies while identifying the pwm device while the clients are requesting for.
The pwm backlight will request the pwm driver by name. This is parameter that distinguishes among different pwm devices irrespective of same ops or not.
> > +int pwm_device_register(struct pwm_device *pwm_dev);
> > +int pwm_device_unregister(struct pwm_device *pwm_dev);
> > +
> > #endif /* __LINUX_PWM_H */
>
> It might be also a good idea to add a device class for pwm devices.
Sure, but can you please explain with an example the use case.
Thanks and Regards,
Arun R Murthy
-------------
