[PATCH v3 pre-03/12] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled()
boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com
Sat Oct 10 08:14:20 PDT 2015
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:10:38 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Commit 5c31252c4a86 ("pwm: Add the pwm_is_enabled() helper") introduced a
> new function to test whether a PWM device is enabled or not without
> manipulating PWM internal fields.
> Hiding this is necessary if we want to smoothly move to the atomic PWM
> config approach without impacting PWM drivers.
> Fix this driver to use pwm_is_enabled() instead of directly accessing the
> ->flags field.
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> Hi Thierry,
Please ignore this patch: it was meant to be sent in reply to the
> I noticed you applied a few patches adding new PWM drivers in your
> pwm-next tree, and one of them is directly testing the PWMF_ENABLED
> flag which is removed by patch 3 of this series, which means you have to
> apply this patch before patch 3.
> I can resend the whole series if you want, but, unless you have a strong
> reason to refuse it, I'd really like to get those changes in, so that I
> don't have to rebase and fix the series each time a new driver is added.
> Best Regards,
> drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
> index 6e99a63..70899c9 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int rcar_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> return div;
> /* Let the core driver set pwm->period if disabled and duty_ns == 0 */
> - if (!test_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, &pwm->flags) && !duty_ns)
> + if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && !duty_ns)
> return 0;
> rcar_pwm_update(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR);
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
More information about the linux-arm-kernel