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: <20170804090935.6aba3351@bbrezillon>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:09:35 +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 Fri, 4 Aug 2017 10:38:26 +0800
"David.Wu" <david.wu@...k-chips.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris，
> 
> 在 2017/8/2 19:40, Boris Brezillon 写道:
> > 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);  
> 
> I think we should keep the data members in the rockchip_pwm_data，like 
> supports_polarity and regs...
> 
> The supports_polarity is needed for of_pwm_n_cells when pwm registered.
> And the other data members is helpful for us to use common code.
> 
> It's okay for just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), but 
> they are with other data members in the struct of rockchip_pwm_data.
> 

I think we could even get rid of the other fields in rockchip_pwm_data,
but ok, let's do that.