[PATCH RESEND v5 1/2] PWM: PXA: add device tree support to PWM driver
mikedunn at newsguy.com
Wed Dec 4 13:21:55 EST 2013
On 12/04/2013 01:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 10:45:29AM -0800, Mike Dunn wrote:
>> On 12/03/2013 02:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:19:33PM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote:
>>>> This patch adds device tree support to the PXA's PWM driver. Nothing
>>>> needs to be extracted from the device tree node by the PWM device.
>>>> Client devices need only specify the period; the per-chip index is
>>>> implicitly zero because one device node must be present for each PWM
>>>> output in use. This approach is more convenient due to the wide
>>>> variability in the number of PWM channels present across the various PXA
>>>> variants, and is made possible by the fact that the register sets for
>>>> each PWM channel are segregated from each other. An of_xlate() method
>>>> is added to parse this single-cell node. The existing ID table is
>>>> reused for the match table data.
>>>> Tested on a Palm Treo 680 (both platform data and DT cases).
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Dunn <mikedunn at newsguy.com>
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pxa-pwm.txt | 30 +++++++++++++
>>>> drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>> 2 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pxa-pwm.txt
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> It looks like this fell through the cracks. Is this patch still the
>>> latest one you have? Should it still be applied?
>> Hi Thierry,
>> Funny I should hear from you about this today.... I just turned my attention
>> back to this today and noticed that it never made it into your for-next branch.
>> Yes, it is the latest. If the patch still applies cleanly, please feel free.
>> Otherwise, I'd be glad to rework it against something more recent.
> I've applied it to my for-next branch (with some minor whitespace fixups
> and some tuning to how the OF match table is defined). I don't consider
> any of the changes risky, but it'd be great if you could still test the
> version that I pushed.
I just tested it... looks good. Thanks again Thierry. Thanks also Haojian.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel