From: thierry.reding@gmail.com (Thierry Reding)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 11/15] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:59:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720085939.GL29614@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435738921-25027-12-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:57AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Add an ->apply() method to the pwm_ops struct to allow PWM drivers to
> implement atomic update.
> This method will be prefered over the ->enable(), ->disable() and
> ->config() methods if available.
>
> Add the pwm_get_state(), pwm_get_default_state() and pwm_apply_state()
> functions for PWM users to be able to use the atomic update feature.
>
> Note that the pwm_apply_state() does not guarantee the atomicity of the
> update operation, it all depends on the availability and implementation
> of the ->apply() method.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/core.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> include/linux/pwm.h | 26 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> index 30631f5..6dafd8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> @@ -238,8 +238,9 @@ int pwmchip_add_with_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> unsigned int i;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || !chip->ops->config ||
> - !chip->ops->enable || !chip->ops->disable || !chip->npwm)
> + if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || (!chip->ops->apply &&
> + (!chip->ops->config || !chip->ops->enable ||
> + !chip->ops->disable)) || !chip->npwm)
> return -EINVAL;
This is becoming really unreadable, perhaps split it into two checks, or
even split out the sanity check on the ops into a separate function to
make the negations easier to read:
static bool pwm_ops_check(const struct pwm_ops *ops)
{
/* driver supports legacy, non-atomic operation */
if (ops->config && ops->enable && ops->disable)
return true;
/* driver supports atomic operation */
if (ops->apply)
return true;
return false;
}
and then use this:
if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || !chip->npwm)
return -EINVAL;
if (!pwm_ops_check(chip->ops))
return -EINVAL;
> mutex_lock(&pwm_lock);
> @@ -430,7 +431,17 @@ int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> if (!pwm || duty_ns < 0 || period_ns <= 0 || duty_ns > period_ns)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - err = pwm->chip->ops->config(pwm->chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns);
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
Shouldn't this use pwm_get_state()?
> +
> + state.period = period_ns;
> + state.duty_cycle = duty_ns;
> +
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + } else {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->config(pwm->chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns);
> + }
> +
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> @@ -455,6 +466,17 @@ int pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
> if (!pwm || !pwm->chip->ops)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
Same here.
> +
> + state.polarity = polarity;
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state.polarity = polarity;
> +
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> if (!pwm->chip->ops->set_polarity)
> return -ENOSYS;
>
> @@ -477,17 +499,27 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_set_polarity);
> */
> int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> {
> - if (pwm && !pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
> - int err;
> + int err;
>
> - err = pwm->chip->ops->enable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> - if (!err)
> - pwm->state.enabled = true;
> + if (!pwm)
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> - return err;
> + if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
And here.
> +
> + state.enabled = true;
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
There should be a space between the above two lines.
> + } else {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->enable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> }
>
> - return pwm ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state.enabled = true;
> +
> + return err;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_enable);
>
> @@ -497,13 +529,67 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_enable);
> */
> void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> {
> - if (pwm && pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
> + if (!pwm || !pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
> + return;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
> +
> + state.enabled = false;
> + pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + } else {
> pwm->chip->ops->disable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> - pwm->state.enabled = false;
> }
> +
> + pwm->state.enabled = false;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_disable);
Same comments as for pwm_enable().
>
> +int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> +
> + if (!pwm)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (!memcmp(state, &pwm->state, sizeof(*state)))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, state);
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state = *state;
Maybe we want pwm_set_state() for this?
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * FIXME: restore the initial state in case of error.
> + */
> + if (state->polarity != pwm->state.polarity) {
> + pwm_disable(pwm);
> + err = pwm_set_polarity(pwm, state->polarity);
> + if (err)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
> + state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
> + err = pwm_config(pwm, state->period, state->duty_cycle);
> + if (err)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (state->enabled != pwm->state.enabled) {
> + if (state->enabled)
> + err = pwm_enable(pwm);
> + else
> + pwm_disable(pwm);
> + }
> + }
> +
> +out:
> + return err;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_apply_state);
> +
> static struct pwm_chip *of_node_to_pwmchip(struct device_node *np)
> {
> struct pwm_chip *chip;
> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> index b47244a..7e99679 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> @@ -151,6 +151,29 @@ static inline enum pwm_polarity pwm_get_polarity(const struct pwm_device *pwm)
> return pwm ? pwm->state.polarity : PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * pwm_apply_state - apply a new state to the PWM device
> + */
> +int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state);
If you add kerneldoc, please add it properly. It should start with /**
and you need to list at least the parameters and return value.
Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150720/40a5e6a4/attachment.sig>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@gmail.com>, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>,
Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@samsung.com>,
linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/15] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:59:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720085939.GL29614@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435738921-25027-12-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6611 bytes --]
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:57AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Add an ->apply() method to the pwm_ops struct to allow PWM drivers to
> implement atomic update.
> This method will be prefered over the ->enable(), ->disable() and
> ->config() methods if available.
>
> Add the pwm_get_state(), pwm_get_default_state() and pwm_apply_state()
> functions for PWM users to be able to use the atomic update feature.
>
> Note that the pwm_apply_state() does not guarantee the atomicity of the
> update operation, it all depends on the availability and implementation
> of the ->apply() method.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/core.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> include/linux/pwm.h | 26 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> index 30631f5..6dafd8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> @@ -238,8 +238,9 @@ int pwmchip_add_with_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> unsigned int i;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || !chip->ops->config ||
> - !chip->ops->enable || !chip->ops->disable || !chip->npwm)
> + if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || (!chip->ops->apply &&
> + (!chip->ops->config || !chip->ops->enable ||
> + !chip->ops->disable)) || !chip->npwm)
> return -EINVAL;
This is becoming really unreadable, perhaps split it into two checks, or
even split out the sanity check on the ops into a separate function to
make the negations easier to read:
static bool pwm_ops_check(const struct pwm_ops *ops)
{
/* driver supports legacy, non-atomic operation */
if (ops->config && ops->enable && ops->disable)
return true;
/* driver supports atomic operation */
if (ops->apply)
return true;
return false;
}
and then use this:
if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || !chip->npwm)
return -EINVAL;
if (!pwm_ops_check(chip->ops))
return -EINVAL;
> mutex_lock(&pwm_lock);
> @@ -430,7 +431,17 @@ int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> if (!pwm || duty_ns < 0 || period_ns <= 0 || duty_ns > period_ns)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - err = pwm->chip->ops->config(pwm->chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns);
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
Shouldn't this use pwm_get_state()?
> +
> + state.period = period_ns;
> + state.duty_cycle = duty_ns;
> +
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + } else {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->config(pwm->chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns);
> + }
> +
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> @@ -455,6 +466,17 @@ int pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
> if (!pwm || !pwm->chip->ops)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
Same here.
> +
> + state.polarity = polarity;
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state.polarity = polarity;
> +
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> if (!pwm->chip->ops->set_polarity)
> return -ENOSYS;
>
> @@ -477,17 +499,27 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_set_polarity);
> */
> int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> {
> - if (pwm && !pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
> - int err;
> + int err;
>
> - err = pwm->chip->ops->enable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> - if (!err)
> - pwm->state.enabled = true;
> + if (!pwm)
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> - return err;
> + if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
And here.
> +
> + state.enabled = true;
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
There should be a space between the above two lines.
> + } else {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->enable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> }
>
> - return pwm ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state.enabled = true;
> +
> + return err;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_enable);
>
> @@ -497,13 +529,67 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_enable);
> */
> void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> {
> - if (pwm && pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
> + if (!pwm || !pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
> + return;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
> +
> + state.enabled = false;
> + pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + } else {
> pwm->chip->ops->disable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> - pwm->state.enabled = false;
> }
> +
> + pwm->state.enabled = false;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_disable);
Same comments as for pwm_enable().
>
> +int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> +
> + if (!pwm)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (!memcmp(state, &pwm->state, sizeof(*state)))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, state);
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state = *state;
Maybe we want pwm_set_state() for this?
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * FIXME: restore the initial state in case of error.
> + */
> + if (state->polarity != pwm->state.polarity) {
> + pwm_disable(pwm);
> + err = pwm_set_polarity(pwm, state->polarity);
> + if (err)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
> + state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
> + err = pwm_config(pwm, state->period, state->duty_cycle);
> + if (err)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (state->enabled != pwm->state.enabled) {
> + if (state->enabled)
> + err = pwm_enable(pwm);
> + else
> + pwm_disable(pwm);
> + }
> + }
> +
> +out:
> + return err;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_apply_state);
> +
> static struct pwm_chip *of_node_to_pwmchip(struct device_node *np)
> {
> struct pwm_chip *chip;
> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> index b47244a..7e99679 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> @@ -151,6 +151,29 @@ static inline enum pwm_polarity pwm_get_polarity(const struct pwm_device *pwm)
> return pwm ? pwm->state.polarity : PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * pwm_apply_state - apply a new state to the PWM device
> + */
> +int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state);
If you add kerneldoc, please add it properly. It should start with /**
and you need to list at least the parameters and return value.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/15] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:59:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720085939.GL29614@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435738921-25027-12-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6611 bytes --]
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:57AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Add an ->apply() method to the pwm_ops struct to allow PWM drivers to
> implement atomic update.
> This method will be prefered over the ->enable(), ->disable() and
> ->config() methods if available.
>
> Add the pwm_get_state(), pwm_get_default_state() and pwm_apply_state()
> functions for PWM users to be able to use the atomic update feature.
>
> Note that the pwm_apply_state() does not guarantee the atomicity of the
> update operation, it all depends on the availability and implementation
> of the ->apply() method.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/core.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> include/linux/pwm.h | 26 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> index 30631f5..6dafd8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> @@ -238,8 +238,9 @@ int pwmchip_add_with_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> unsigned int i;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || !chip->ops->config ||
> - !chip->ops->enable || !chip->ops->disable || !chip->npwm)
> + if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || (!chip->ops->apply &&
> + (!chip->ops->config || !chip->ops->enable ||
> + !chip->ops->disable)) || !chip->npwm)
> return -EINVAL;
This is becoming really unreadable, perhaps split it into two checks, or
even split out the sanity check on the ops into a separate function to
make the negations easier to read:
static bool pwm_ops_check(const struct pwm_ops *ops)
{
/* driver supports legacy, non-atomic operation */
if (ops->config && ops->enable && ops->disable)
return true;
/* driver supports atomic operation */
if (ops->apply)
return true;
return false;
}
and then use this:
if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || !chip->npwm)
return -EINVAL;
if (!pwm_ops_check(chip->ops))
return -EINVAL;
> mutex_lock(&pwm_lock);
> @@ -430,7 +431,17 @@ int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> if (!pwm || duty_ns < 0 || period_ns <= 0 || duty_ns > period_ns)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - err = pwm->chip->ops->config(pwm->chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns);
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
Shouldn't this use pwm_get_state()?
> +
> + state.period = period_ns;
> + state.duty_cycle = duty_ns;
> +
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + } else {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->config(pwm->chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns);
> + }
> +
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> @@ -455,6 +466,17 @@ int pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
> if (!pwm || !pwm->chip->ops)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
Same here.
> +
> + state.polarity = polarity;
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state.polarity = polarity;
> +
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> if (!pwm->chip->ops->set_polarity)
> return -ENOSYS;
>
> @@ -477,17 +499,27 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_set_polarity);
> */
> int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> {
> - if (pwm && !pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
> - int err;
> + int err;
>
> - err = pwm->chip->ops->enable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> - if (!err)
> - pwm->state.enabled = true;
> + if (!pwm)
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> - return err;
> + if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
And here.
> +
> + state.enabled = true;
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
There should be a space between the above two lines.
> + } else {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->enable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> }
>
> - return pwm ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state.enabled = true;
> +
> + return err;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_enable);
>
> @@ -497,13 +529,67 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_enable);
> */
> void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> {
> - if (pwm && pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
> + if (!pwm || !pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
> + return;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + struct pwm_state state = pwm->state;
> +
> + state.enabled = false;
> + pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, &state);
> + } else {
> pwm->chip->ops->disable(pwm->chip, pwm);
> - pwm->state.enabled = false;
> }
> +
> + pwm->state.enabled = false;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_disable);
Same comments as for pwm_enable().
>
> +int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> +
> + if (!pwm)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (!memcmp(state, &pwm->state, sizeof(*state)))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
> + err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, state);
> + if (!err)
> + pwm->state = *state;
Maybe we want pwm_set_state() for this?
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * FIXME: restore the initial state in case of error.
> + */
> + if (state->polarity != pwm->state.polarity) {
> + pwm_disable(pwm);
> + err = pwm_set_polarity(pwm, state->polarity);
> + if (err)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
> + state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
> + err = pwm_config(pwm, state->period, state->duty_cycle);
> + if (err)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (state->enabled != pwm->state.enabled) {
> + if (state->enabled)
> + err = pwm_enable(pwm);
> + else
> + pwm_disable(pwm);
> + }
> + }
> +
> +out:
> + return err;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_apply_state);
> +
> static struct pwm_chip *of_node_to_pwmchip(struct device_node *np)
> {
> struct pwm_chip *chip;
> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> index b47244a..7e99679 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> @@ -151,6 +151,29 @@ static inline enum pwm_polarity pwm_get_polarity(const struct pwm_device *pwm)
> return pwm ? pwm->state.polarity : PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * pwm_apply_state - apply a new state to the PWM device
> + */
> +int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state);
If you add kerneldoc, please add it properly. It should start with /**
and you need to list at least the parameters and return value.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 204+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-01 8:21 [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 01/15] pwm: add the pwm_is_enabled() helper Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 02/15] pwm: fix pwm_get_period and pwm_get_duty_cycle prototypes Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 03/15] pwm: add pwm_get_polarity helper function Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 04/15] pwm: make use of pwm_get_xxx helpers where appropriate Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 05/15] pwm: introduce default period and polarity concepts Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 06/15] pwm: define a new pwm_state struct Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 07/15] pwm: move the enabled/disabled info to " Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 08/15] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 09/15] pwm: declare a default PWM state Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 10/15] pwm: add the PWM initial state retrieval infra Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 11/15] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding [this message]
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 12/15] pwm: rockchip: add initial state retrieval Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 13/15] pwm: rockchip: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 14/15] regulator: pwm: implement ->enable(), ->disable() and ->is_enabled methods Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 15/15] regulator: pwm: properly initialize the ->state field Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 16/15] pwm: add informations about polarity, duty cycle and period to debugfs Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:50 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:50 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-03 8:43 ` [PATCH] " Heiko Stübner
2015-07-03 8:43 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-03 8:43 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150720085939.GL29614@ulmo \
--to=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.