linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] pwm: rockchip: Remove the dumplicate rockchip_pwm

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: <20170802134011.1124f1dd@bbrezillon>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:40:11 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     "David.Wu" <david.wu@...k-chips.com>
Cc:     thierry.reding@...il.com, heiko@...ech.de, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, briannorris@...omium.org,
        dianders@...omium.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        huangtao@...k-chips.com, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] pwm: rockchip: Remove the dumplicate
 rockchip_pwm_ops ops

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 19:31:57 +0800
"David.Wu" <david.wu@...k-chips.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> 在 2017/8/2 16:59, Boris Brezillon 写道:
> > Actually, when I suggested to just implement ->apply_state() and be
> > done with all other fields I was thinking that you could get rid of
> > this rockchip_pwm_data struct entirely and just have 3 different
> > pwm_ops. You seem to take the other direction here: you're removing
> > rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 and renaming rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 into
> > rockchip_pwm_ops.  
> 
> Yes, i really didn't understand exactly what you mean.
> Your mean is that remove the set_enable, get_state and other hooks,
> then use the pwm_ops instead of them, which has 3 different version, and 
> implement the pwm_ops's functions like apply(), enable(), get_state() 
> and others...?
> 

Yep, just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), each of them
implementing ->apply() and ->get_state() and that's all.

Something like:

static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = {
	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_v1_get_state,
	.apply = rockchip_pwm_v1_apply,
	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};

static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 = {
	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_v2_get_state,
	.apply = rockchip_pwm_v2_apply,
	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};

static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_vop = {
	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_vop_get_state,
	.apply = rockchip_pwm_vop_apply,
	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};

static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 },
	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 },
	{ .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_vop },
	{ /* sentinel */ }
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);