[RFC PATCH 13/15] pwm: rockchip: add support for atomic update

[Heiko Stübner]

Hi Boris,


Am Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2015, 10:21:59 schrieb Boris Brezillon:
> Implement the ->apply() function to add support for atomic update.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> ---
> @@ -110,6 +113,26 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip
> *chip, writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
>  }
> 
> +static void rockchip_pwm_init_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device
> *pwm) +{
> +	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> +			  PWM_CONTINUOUS;
> +	u32 val;
> +
> +	val = readl(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +
> +	if ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf)
> +		return;
> +
> +	pwm->state.enabled = true;
> +
> +	enable_conf = PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
> +
> +	if ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf)
> +		pwm->state.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;

the inactive setting does not affect the polarity of the running pwm, only what 
to do when it gets turned off. Also PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE is the "0" value for the 
bit so also is bad to compare against (and results in wrong readings). So I 
would suggest changing this like

-       enable_conf = PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
+       enable_conf = PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE;
 
-       if ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf)
+       if ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf)
 

> +}
> +
>  static void rockchip_pwm_init_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>  				    struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  {


Heiko