[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180119223452.doeqfd4aewkf5fla@rob-hp-laptop>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:34:52 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com, mark.rutland@....com,
linux@...linux.org.uk, daniel@...que.org, haojian.zhuang@...il.com,
robert.jarzmik@...e.fr, corbet@....net,
nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/16] pwm: Add PWM modes
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 04:22:57PM +0200, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
> Define a macros for PWM modes to be used by device tree sources.
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
> ---
> include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h b/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h
> index ab9a077e3c7d..b8617431f8ec 100644
> --- a/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h
> @@ -12,4 +12,7 @@
>
> #define PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED (1 << 0)
>
> +#define PWM_DTMODE_NORMAL (1 << 0)
Bit 0 is already taken. I think you mean (0 << 1)?
Personally, I'd just drop this define. A define for a 0 value makes more
sense when each state is equally used (like active high or low), but if
0 is the more common case, then I don't the need for a define.
> +#define PWM_DTMODE_COMPLEMENTARY (1 << 1)
> +
> #endif
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists