Hi,
On 3/31/20 8:10 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:57:13PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Use pwm_apply_state we can avoid having to store PWM state in the
>> instance structure and in future we have an easy way to support new
>> parameters like inverted duty cycle.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/video/backlight-pwm.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight-pwm.c b/drivers/video/backlight-pwm.c
>> index 9111a42d7544..8b6494dac929 100644
>> --- a/drivers/video/backlight-pwm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight-pwm.c
>> @@ -33,7 +33,6 @@ struct pwm_backlight {
>> struct backlight_device backlight;
>> struct pwm_device *pwm;
>> struct regulator *power;
>> - uint32_t period;
>> unsigned int *levels;
>> int enable_gpio;
>> int enable_active_high;
>> @@ -91,13 +90,16 @@ static int backlight_pwm_disable(struct pwm_backlight *pwm_backlight)
>> static int compute_duty_cycle(struct pwm_backlight *pwm_backlight, int brightness)
>> {
>> int duty_cycle;
>> + struct pwm_state state;
>> +
>> + pwm_get_state(pwm_backlight->pwm, &state);
>>
>> if (pwm_backlight->levels)
>> duty_cycle = pwm_backlight->levels[brightness];
>> else
>> duty_cycle = brightness;
>>
>> - return duty_cycle * pwm_backlight->period / pwm_backlight->scale;
>> + return duty_cycle * state.period_ns / pwm_backlight->scale;
>> }
>>
>> static int backlight_pwm_set(struct backlight_device *backlight,
>> @@ -105,9 +107,11 @@ static int backlight_pwm_set(struct backlight_device *backlight,
>> {
>> struct pwm_backlight *pwm_backlight = container_of(backlight,
>> struct pwm_backlight, backlight);
>> + struct pwm_state state;
>>
>> - pwm_config(pwm_backlight->pwm, compute_duty_cycle(pwm_backlight, brightness),
>> - pwm_backlight->period);
>> + pwm_get_state(pwm_backlight->pwm, &state);
>
> You read the current pwm state here...
>
>> + state.duty_ns = compute_duty_cycle(pwm_backlight, brightness);
>
> and once again in compute_duty_cycle(). I think it would be nicer to
> reorganize this a bit, maybe pass the state to compute_duty_cycle.
>
>> + pwm_apply_state(pwm_backlight->pwm, &state);
>>
>> if (brightness)
>> return backlight_pwm_enable(pwm_backlight);
>
> I would assume that if you switch to the pwm_apply_state API then you do
> it entirely. backlight_pwm_enable() still uses the old API to enable the
> PWM.
Ineed. Rest of patches should apply and build cleanly without this and the last one.
If they're ok, can you apply them and I respin only those two?
Cheers
Ahmad
>
> Sascha
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
