[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190222092753.jv5yzuqiijp4lqys@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:27:53 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com
Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] pwm: atmel: add support for SAM9X60's PWM
controller
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 09:07:57AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 21.02.2019 22:45, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:09:00AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
> > I wonder how the naming of the defines is chosen given that pwm_data_v3
> > is the first that needs PWM_MAXV2_PRD. Looks inconsistent.
>
> I know... I'm aware of that. The thing is controllers may differ with
> regards to in-flight duty update and now there is this new difference w/
> regards to counters size.
>
> Renaming the objects of type atmel_pwm_data in something like
> atmel_pwm_data_<chip-name> as you suggested before would make things clear
> for you?
Yes. Naming stuff after the first SoC that hat the respective
feature/quirk/property should be fine.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists