linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53E2F471.6020701@rock-chips.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Aug 2014 11:37:21 +0800
From:	caesar <caesar.wang@...k-chips.com>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
CC:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Beniamino Galvani <b.galvani@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Eddie Cai <cf@...k-chips.com>,
	Tao Huang <huangtao@...k-chips.com>,
	Jianqun Xu <xjq@...k-chips.com>,
	Addy Ke <addy.ke@...k-chips.com>,
	陈渐飞 <cjf@...k-chips.com>,
	han jiang <hj@...k-chips.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-pwm <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

Doug,

在 2014年08月07日 11:26, Doug Anderson 写道:
> caesar,
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@...k-chips.com> wrote:
>> 在 2014年08月07日 10:16, Doug Anderson 写道:
>>
>>> Caesar,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@...k-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug,
>>>>
>>>> 在 2014年08月07日 06:46, Doug Anderson 写道:
>>>>
>>>>> Caesar,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang
>>>>> <caesar.wang@...k-chips.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
>>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
>>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
>>>>> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
>>>>> be:
>>>>>
>>>>>     +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>     +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but should be
>>>>>
>>>>>     +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>     +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>
>>>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
>>>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
>>>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
>>>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
>>>>
>>>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
>>>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
>>>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .
>>> OK, I looked up in the TRM.  Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
>>> the vop.  So I think that the only change you need is to add:
>>>
>>> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL  0x00
>>> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR  0x0c
>>>
>>> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.
>>>
>>>
>>> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing.  The new
>>> #defines will fix this.
>>>
>> yeah, I think they can be used in the same context.
>>
>> I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need.
> I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then it's
> really his decision.
I remember In patch v2 [1],Thierry suggests me to fix it so if I have no 
to get wrong.

[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113
>
>


--
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/