[PATCH v4 2/3] pwm: sophgo: reorganize the code structure

[Longbin Li]

On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 04:59:34PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:34:49AM +0800, Longbin Li wrote:
> > As the driver logic can be used in both SG2042 and SG2044, it
> > will be better to reorganize the code structure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Longbin Li <looong.bin at gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang at outlook.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> > index ff4639d849ce..23a83843ba53 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> > @@ -26,18 +26,6 @@
> >  #include <linux/pwm.h>
> >  #include <linux/reset.h>
> > 
> > -/*
> > - * Offset RegisterName
> > - * 0x0000 HLPERIOD0
> > - * 0x0004 PERIOD0
> > - * 0x0008 HLPERIOD1
> > - * 0x000C PERIOD1
> > - * 0x0010 HLPERIOD2
> > - * 0x0014 PERIOD2
> > - * 0x0018 HLPERIOD3
> > - * 0x001C PERIOD3
> > - * Four groups and every group is composed of HLPERIOD & PERIOD
> > - */
> 
> This seems to be still correct? Why remove it then?
> 

The following "#define" has already expressd it. For clarity,
i will add it back.

> >  #define SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 0)
> >  #define SG2042_PWM_PERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 4)
> > 
> > @@ -53,6 +41,10 @@ struct sg2042_pwm_ddata {
> >  	unsigned long clk_rate_hz;
> >  };
> > 
> > +struct sg2042_chip_data {
> > +	const struct pwm_ops ops;
> > +};
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * period_ticks: PERIOD
> >   * hlperiod_ticks: HLPERIOD
> > @@ -66,21 +58,13 @@ static void pwm_sg2042_config(struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata, unsigned int chan,
> >  	writel(hlperiod_ticks, base + SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan));
> >  }
> > 
> > -static int pwm_sg2042_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > -			    const struct pwm_state *state)
> > +static void pwm_set_dutycycle(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> 
> This is not a global pwm API function, so please stick to the pwm_sg2042
> prefix.
> 

I will modify that, thanks.

> > +			      const struct pwm_state *state)
> >  {
> >  	struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata = pwmchip_get_drvdata(chip);
> >  	u32 hlperiod_ticks;
> >  	u32 period_ticks;
> > 
> > -	if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -
> > -	if (!state->enabled) {
> > -		pwm_sg2042_config(ddata, pwm->hwpwm, 0, 0);
> > -		return 0;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Duration of High level (duty_cycle) = HLPERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
> >  	 * Duration of One Cycle (period) = PERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
> > [...]
> > @@ -123,13 +123,16 @@ static int pwm_sg2042_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > 
> > -static const struct pwm_ops pwm_sg2042_ops = {
> > -	.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
> > -	.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
> > +static const struct sg2042_chip_data sg2042_chip_data = {
> > +	.ops = {
> > +		.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
> > +		.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
> > +	}
> >  };
> > 
> >  static const struct of_device_id sg2042_pwm_ids[] = {
> > -	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm" },
> > +	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm",
> > +	  .data = &sg2042_chip_data },
> 
> I would have expected that checkpatch doesn't like that. At least I
> don't. Please make this
> 
> 	{
> 		.compatible = ...;
> 		.data = ...;
> 	},
> 

I will check that, thanks.

> >  	{ }
> >  };
> >  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sg2042_pwm_ids);