[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B72BAB8.4090008@billgatliff.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:55:04 -0600
From: Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
To: H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>
CC: linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PWM PATCH 1/7] API to consolidate PWM devices behind a common
user and kernel interface
H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> +int pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_channel *p,
>> + int active_high)
>> +{
>> + struct pwm_channel_config c = {
>> + .config_mask = PWM_CONFIG_POLARITY,
>> + .polarity = active_high,
>> + };
>> + return pwm_config(p, &c);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_set_polarity);
>>
>
> Has the 'polarity' logic been verified?
>
> pwm_set_polarity takes an active high flag that is passed to pwm_config.
> A write to the sysfs 'polarity' file passes the value directly to pwm_config.
> A read from the sysfs 'polarity' file returns struct pwm_channel ->active_low.
>
> Seems like a mis-match in logic.
>
It was. And on top of that, none of the drivers were reflecting their
polarity in their pwm_channel structures.
I renamed the channel structure variable to active_high for consistency,
and updated each of the drivers to set that value consistent with their
actual polarities.
Very good catch.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
Embedded systems training and consulting
http://billgatliff.com
bgat@...lgatliff.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists