On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 08:24:26AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:20:06 -0700 Brian Norris <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > @@ -75,6 +77,19 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip > > > *chip, > > > writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl); > > > } > > > > > > +static void rockchip_pwm_get_state_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, > > > + struct pwm_device *pwm, > > > + struct pwm_state *state) > > > +{ > > > + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip); > > > + u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN; > > > + u32 val; > > > + > > > + val = readl(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl); > > > > Nit: I just noticed you've been starting to use readl()/writel() in this > > series, where previously {readl,writel}_relaxed() were being used. Any > > reason? > > Because I'm lazy and usually don't take the time to think whether it's > safe of not to use the _relaxed() versions :-). Not sure you'll have a > noticeable improvement by using _relaxed() for a PWM device by the > way, but I can change that ;-).
I just figured consistency would be nice. Brian
