Hello Paul, On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 07:04:56PM +0200, Paul Cercueil wrote: > Le ven. 9 août 2019 à 18:51, Uwe =?iso-8859-1?q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:30:25PM +0200, Paul Cercueil wrote: > > > The TCU registers are shared between a handful of drivers, accessing > > > them through the same regmap. > > > > > > While this driver is devicetree-compatible, it is never (as of now) > > > probed from devicetree, so this change does not introduce a ABI > > > problem > > > with current devicetree files. > > > > If you adapt the binding also update the binding doc please. > > It's already updated, in mips-next, so it'll be in the next -rc1.
This is a useful information for the commit log. > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <[email protected]> > > > Tested-by: Mathieu Malaterre <[email protected]> > > > Tested-by: Artur Rojek <[email protected]> > > > > nitpick: put your S-o-b line after the other tags you added. > > > > > --- > > > drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 1 + > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig > > > index a7e57516959e..cc4df0ec978a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig > > > @@ -225,6 +225,7 @@ config PWM_IMX_TPM > > > config PWM_JZ4740 > > > tristate "Ingenic JZ47xx PWM support" > > > depends on MACH_INGENIC > > > + select MFD_SYSCON > > > help > > > Generic PWM framework driver for Ingenic JZ47xx based > > > machines. > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c > > > index f901e8a0d33d..7aea5e0c6e18 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c > > > @@ -8,18 +8,20 @@ > > > #include <linux/err.h> > > > #include <linux/gpio.h> > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/ingenic-tcu.h> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/syscon.h> > > > #include <linux/module.h> > > > #include <linux/of_device.h> > > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > > #include <linux/pwm.h> > > > - > > > -#include <asm/mach-jz4740/timer.h> > > > +#include <linux/regmap.h> > > > > > > #define NUM_PWM 8 > > > > > > struct jz4740_pwm_chip { > > > struct pwm_chip chip; > > > struct clk *clk; > > > + struct regmap *map; > > > }; > > > > > > static inline struct jz4740_pwm_chip *to_jz4740(struct pwm_chip *chip) > > > @@ -29,6 +31,8 @@ static inline struct jz4740_pwm_chip *to_jz4740(struct > > > pwm_chip *chip) > > > > > > static int jz4740_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device > > > *pwm) > > > { > > > + struct jz4740_pwm_chip *jz = to_jz4740(chip); > > > + > > > /* > > > * Timers 0 and 1 are used for system tasks, so they are > > > unavailable > > > * for use as PWMs. > > > @@ -36,50 +40,53 @@ static int jz4740_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, > > > struct pwm_device *pwm) > > > if (pwm->hwpwm < 2) > > > return -EBUSY; > > > > > > - jz4740_timer_start(pwm->hwpwm); > > > + regmap_write(jz->map, TCU_REG_TSCR, BIT(pwm->hwpwm)); > > > > jz4740_timer_start does > > > > writel(BIT(timer), jz4740_timer_base + JZ_REG_TIMER_STOP_CLEAR); > > > > with > > > > #define JZ_REG_TIMER_STOP_CLEAR 0x2C > > > > and > > > > #define TCU_REG_TSCR 0x3c > > > > I wonder why the offsets are different. > > The offset are different because the base is different. This is a useful information for the commit log. > > > > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > static void jz4740_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device > > > *pwm) > > > { > > > - jz4740_timer_set_ctrl(pwm->hwpwm, 0); > > > + struct jz4740_pwm_chip *jz = to_jz4740(chip); > > > > > > - jz4740_timer_stop(pwm->hwpwm); > > > + regmap_write(jz->map, TCU_REG_TSCR, BIT(pwm->hwpwm)); > > > > jz4740_timer_set_ctrl writes to offset (((pwm->hwpwm) * 0x10) + 0x3C) > > and jz4740_timer_stop to offset 0x1c. The regmap_write doesn't do both > > of them but instead writes to offset 0x3c. > > I guess it should have been TCU_REG_TSSR ("Timer Stop Set Register") and > I didn't notice because the next patch drops this write anyway. > > I'll do as you suggested in your other reply and swap the two patches if > it makes things easier, it'll get rid of this write. ok. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
