On 14 April 2016 at 21:17, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com> wrote: > Use pwm_get/set_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.brezil...@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 +-
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c > index 9861fed..19dc64c 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) { > set_event = lpc18xx_pwm->period_event; > clear_event = lpc18xx_data->duty_event; > res_action = LPC18XX_PWM_RES_SET; For the lpc18xx-sct part: Acked-by: Joachim Eastwood <manab...@gmail.com> regards, Joachim Eastwood _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx