[PATCH v4 02/24] pwm: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate

[Joachim Eastwood]

Hi Boris

(Adding Ariel for pwm-lpc18xx-sct)

On 16 November 2015 at 09:56, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
> Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
> update.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> ---
> Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
>
> --->8---
> virtual patch
>
> @@
> struct pwm_device *p;
> expression e;
> @@
> (
> -(p)->polarity = e;
> +pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
> |
> -(p)->polarity
> +pwm_get_polarity((p))
> |
> -(p)->period = e;
> +pwm_set_period((p), e);
> |
> -(p)->period
> +pwm_get_period((p))
> |
> -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
> +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
> |
> -(p)->duty_cycle
> +pwm_get_duty_cycle((p))
> )
> --->8---
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c         | 2 +-
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> index 7101c70..2f88543 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         }
>
> -       if (pwm->period != period_ns) {
> +       if (pwm_get_period((pwm)) != period_ns) {
>                 int clk_div;
>
>                 /* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
> index 9163085..091fa13 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c
> @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ static int lpc18xx_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>                            LPC18XX_PWM_EVSTATEMSK(lpc18xx_data->duty_event),
>                            LPC18XX_PWM_EVSTATEMSK_ALL);
>
> -       if (pwm->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) {
> +       if (pwm_get_polarity((pwm)) == PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) {

What is the deal with the double parentheses?

Think I saw that in some of the other patches as well.


regards,
Joachim Eastwood