[PATCH v4] PWM: PXA: add device tree support to PWM driver

[Thierry Reding]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:59:42AM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote:
[...]
> Only an OF match table is added;
[...]

That's no longer true. You also add a custom .of_xlate() function.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pxa-pwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pxa-pwm.txt
[...]
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: should be one or more of:
> +  - "marvell,pxa250-pwm"
> +  - "marvell,pxa270-pwm"
> +  - "marvell,pxa168-pwm"
> +  - "marvell,pxa910-pwm"
> +- reg: physical base address and length of the registers used by the PWM channel
> +  NB: One device instance must be created for each PWM that is used, so the

Nit: "NB:" looks like it starts a new property. Perhaps something like:

	"Note that one device node must be present for each PWM ..."

would be less confusing to the eye.

> +  length covers only the register window for one PWM output, not that of the
> +  entire PWM controller.  Currently length is 0x10 for all supported devices.

So that again confuses me. If the controller really is one or two PWM
channels, and four PWM channels, as given in the pxa27x.dtsi, are in
fact two controllers (not four) then I wonder if this really is the
correct binding for it.

That said, Stephen seems to be okay with it, and I'll yield to his
authority on the matter.

> +- #pwm-cells: should be 1.  This cell is used to specify the period in

Nit: "Should be 1." It's a sentence and therefore should start with a
capital letter.

> +  nanoseconds.  (Because one device instance is created for each PWM output,
> +  the per-chip index is superflous and not used.)

I'd omit the parentheses (and their content). The description of the
cell is plenty specific about what it should contain. No need to list
what it shouldn't contain.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/pxa27x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/pxa27x.dtsi

I think this belongs in a separate patch so it can go through the
arm-soc tree.

> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.c
[...]
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +/*
> + * Device tree users must create one device instance for each pwm channel.
> + * Hence we dispense with the HAS_SECONDARY_PWM and "tell" the original driver
> + * code that this is a single channel pxa25x-pwm.  Currently all devices are
> + * supported identically.
> + */
> +static struct of_device_id pwm_of_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "marvell,pxa250-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[0]},
> +	{ .compatible = "marvell,pxa270-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[0]},
> +	{ .compatible = "marvell,pxa168-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[0]},
> +	{ .compatible = "marvell,pxa910-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[0]},
> +	{ }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pwm_of_match);
> +
> +static const struct platform_device_id *pxa_pwm_get_id_dt(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	const struct of_device_id *id = of_match_device(pwm_of_match, dev);
> +	if (id)
> +		return (const struct platform_device_id *)id->data;

Is that cast really necessary? id->data is const void *, so shouldn't
need a cast.

> +	else
> +		return NULL;

Perhaps "return id ? id->data : NULL;"?

> +struct pwm_device *
> +pxa_pwm_of_xlate(struct pwm_chip *pc, const struct of_phandle_args *args)

Should be static.

> +{
> +	struct pwm_device *pwm;
> +

You probably want to check that pc->of_pwm_n_cells at least 1 here.

> +	pwm = pwm_request_from_chip(pc, 0, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(pwm))
> +		return pwm;
> +
> +	pwm_set_period(pwm, args->args[0]);
> +
> +	return pwm;
> +}
> +
> +#else  /* !CONFIG_OF */
> +static const struct platform_device_id *pxa_pwm_get_id_dt(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	dev_err(dev, "missing platform data\n");
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +struct pwm_device *
> +pxa_pwm_of_xlate(struct pwm_chip *pc, const struct of_phandle_args *args)
> +{
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +#endif

I prefer not to have these dummy implementations for static functions.
See below...

>  static int pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
>  	const struct platform_device_id *id = platform_get_device_id(pdev);
> @@ -131,6 +185,11 @@ static int pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct resource *r;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> +	if (id == NULL)		/* using device tree */
> +		id = pxa_pwm_get_id_dt(&pdev->dev);

This could be replaced with:

	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && id == NULL)
		id = pxa_pwm_get_id_dt(&pdev->dev);

And pxa_pwm_get_id_dt() can be unconditionally defined. The compiler
will automatically remove it for !OF because it is never used. Also the
comment can then be dropped since the code is already explicit.

>  	pwm = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pwm), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (pwm == NULL) {
>  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to allocate memory\n");
> @@ -145,6 +204,8 @@ static int pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	pwm->chip.ops = &pxa_pwm_ops;
>  	pwm->chip.base = -1;
>  	pwm->chip.npwm = (id->driver_data & HAS_SECONDARY_PWM) ? 2 : 1;
> +	pwm->chip.of_xlate = pxa_pwm_of_xlate;
> +	pwm->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 1;

Similarly if you write this as:

	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) {
		pwm->chip.of_xlate = pxa_pwm_of_xlate;
		pwm->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 1;
	}

Then the only thing that needs #ifdef CONFIG_OF protection will be the
OF match table.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130919/d80723d9/attachment-0001.sig>