| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAAAP30FMDmNuSaV66U9aTR9tRJw4Cmo=ksBU91A1oC9Uf29cNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:35:43 -0300
From: Alexandre Pereira da Silva <aletes.xgr@...il.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
Cc: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: add lpc32xx pwm support
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding@...onic-design.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:27:54PM -0300, Alexandre Pereira da Silva wrote:
>> Add lpc32xx soc pwm driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Pereira da Silva <aletes.xgr@...il.com>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/lpc32xx-pwm.txt | 12 ++
>> drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 11 ++
>> drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 175 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/lpc32xx-pwm.txt
>> create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> overall this looks good, just some comments inline. I'd very much
> appreciate an Acked-by from Roland on this.
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/lpc32xx-pwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/lpc32xx-pwm.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..fb7b3d5
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/lpc32xx-pwm.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
>> +LPC32XX PWM controller
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible: should be "nxp,lpc3220-pwm"
>
> Does the compatible have to be lpc3220-pwm? Can't it be lpc32xx-pwm to
> match the driver and binding names?
>
>> +- reg: physical base address and length of the controller's registers
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +pwm: pwm@...64000 {
>> + compatible = "nxp,lpc3220-pwm";
>> + reg = <0x80064000 2000>;
>
> You probably want to specify the size as 0x2000 as well.
I will copy here the dts for the two pwm controllers this chip has.
This should have been 4 instead.
>> +};
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> index 0b2800f..34086b1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> @@ -28,6 +28,17 @@ config PWM_IMX
>> To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>> will be called pwm-imx.
>>
>> +config PWM_LPC32XX
>> + tristate "LPC32XX PWM support"
>> + depends on ARCH_LPC32XX
>> + help
>> + Generic PWM framework driver for LPC32XX. The LPC32XX soc has two
>> + pwm channels.
>
> Can we keep the spelling consistent here? It should be "PWM" and "SoC".
> It'd be nice if you could fix that up in the commit message as well.
>
>> +
>> + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>> + will be called pwm-lpc32xx.
>> +
>> +
>> config PWM_MXS
>> tristate "Freescale MXS PWM support"
>> depends on ARCH_MXS && OF
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> index cec2500..5459702 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM) += core.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_BFIN) += pwm-bfin.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX) += pwm-imx.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LPC32XX) += pwm-lpc32xx.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_MXS) += pwm-mxs.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_PXA) += pwm-pxa.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_SAMSUNG) += pwm-samsung.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..c7fa126
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright 2012 Alexandre Pereira da Silva <aletes.xgr@...il.com>
>> + *
>> + * The code contained herein is licensed under the GNU General Public
>> + * License. You may obtain a copy of the GNU General Public License
>> + * Version 2 or later at the following locations:
>> + *
>> + * http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html
>> + * http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>> +#include <linux/err.h>
>> +#include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +
>> +struct lpc32xx_pwm_chip {
>> + struct pwm_chip chip;
>> + struct device *dev;
>
> Can you drop this field? You initialize it, but it is never used
> subsequently in the driver.
>
>> + struct clk *clk;
>> + void __iomem *base;
>> +};
>> +
>> +#define PWM_ENABLE (1<<31)
>> +#define PWM_RELOADV(x) (((x) & 0xFF)<<8)
>> +#define PWM_DUTY(x) ((x) & 0xFF)
>
> There should be spaces around <<.
>
>> +
>> +#define to_lpc32xx_pwm_chip(_chip) \
>> + container_of(_chip, struct lpc32xx_pwm_chip, chip)
>> +
>> +static int lpc32xx_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> + int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>
> The alignment looks wrong here. It seems like you aligned properly
> before adding the "static".
>
>> +{
>> + struct lpc32xx_pwm_chip *lpc32xx = to_lpc32xx_pwm_chip(chip);
>> + unsigned long long c;
>> + int period_cycles, duty_cycles;
>> +
>> + c = clk_get_rate(lpc32xx->clk)/256;
>
> Spaces around /.
>
>> + c = c * period_ns;
>> + do_div(c, NSEC_PER_SEC);
>> +
>> + /* Handle high and low extremes */
>> + if (c == 0)
>> + c = 1;
>> + if (c > 255)
>> + c = 0; /* 0 set division by 256 */
>> + period_cycles = c;
>> +
>> + c = 256*duty_ns;
>
> Spaces around *.
>
>> + do_div(c, period_ns);
>> + duty_cycles = c;
>> +
>> + writel(PWM_ENABLE | PWM_RELOADV(period_cycles) | PWM_DUTY(duty_cycles),
>> + lpc32xx->base);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int lpc32xx_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>> +{
>> + struct lpc32xx_pwm_chip *lpc32xx = to_lpc32xx_pwm_chip(chip);
>> +
>> + clk_enable(lpc32xx->clk);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void lpc32xx_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>> +{
>> + struct lpc32xx_pwm_chip *lpc32xx = to_lpc32xx_pwm_chip(chip);
>> +
>> + writel(0, lpc32xx->base);
>> + clk_disable(lpc32xx->clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct pwm_ops lpc32xx_pwm_ops = {
>> + .config = lpc32xx_pwm_config,
>> + .enable = lpc32xx_pwm_enable,
>> + .disable = lpc32xx_pwm_disable,
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int lpc32xx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct lpc32xx_pwm_chip *lpc32xx;
>> + struct resource *res;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + lpc32xx = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lpc32xx), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!lpc32xx)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>
> You should probably check for res != NULL.
>
>> + lpc32xx->base = devm_request_and_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res);
>> + if (!lpc32xx->base)
>> + return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
>> +
>> + lpc32xx->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>> + if (IS_ERR(lpc32xx->clk))
>> + return PTR_ERR(lpc32xx->clk);
>> +
>> + lpc32xx->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + lpc32xx->chip.ops = &lpc32xx_pwm_ops;
>> + lpc32xx->chip.npwm = 1;
>
> The Kconfig help text says that the lpc32xx PWM controller has two
> channels. Why is npwm set to 1 here?
I will improve the description. We have two independent controllers instead.
Thanks for reviewing. I will fix all the other issues that you found as well.
--
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