On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:37:14AM +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> This wouldn't buy much without a material change to of_pwm_get().
> The function of_parse_phandle_with_args() called by of_pwm_get()
> requires the number of args in the pwms property be greater or equal to
> the #pwm-cells property in the pwm node. Thus, the interesting case of
> having #pwm-cells = <3> without changing the existing users is
> prohibited by of_parse_phandle_with_args().

I really don't think that's a problem we need to be concerned with at
the moment.  What we need is for the kernel to be able to parse files
with #pwm-cells = <2> with the pwms property containing two arguments,
and when they're updated to #pwm-cells = <3> with the pwms property
containing three arguments.

Yes, that means all the board dt files need to be updated at the same
time to include the additional argument, but I don't see that as a big
problem.

What we do need to do is to adjust the PWM parsing code such that it's
possible to use either specification without causing any side effects.

I would test this, but as u-boot is rather fscked at the moment and the
networking has broken on my cubox-i as a result... and it seems that the
u-boot developers have pissed off cubox-i u-boot hackers soo much that
they've dropped u-boot in favour of barebox...

 drivers/pwm/core.c  | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
 include/linux/pwm.h |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 2ca95042a0b9..40adbce8ef0c 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -132,14 +132,11 @@ static int pwm_device_request(struct pwm_device *pwm, 
const char *label)
 }
 
 struct pwm_device *
-of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc, const struct of_phandle_args 
*args)
+of_pwm_xlate(struct pwm_chip *pc, const struct of_phandle_args *args)
 {
        struct pwm_device *pwm;
 
-       if (pc->of_pwm_n_cells < 3)
-               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
-
-       if (args->args[0] >= pc->npwm)
+       if (args->args_count < 2)
                return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
        pwm = pwm_request_from_chip(pc, args->args[0], NULL);
@@ -148,33 +145,45 @@ of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc, const struct 
of_phandle_args *args)
 
        pwm_set_period(pwm, args->args[1]);
 
-       if (args->args[2] & PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED)
-               pwm_set_polarity(pwm, PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED);
-       else
-               pwm_set_polarity(pwm, PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL);
+       if (args->args_count > 2) {
+               int err;
+
+               if (args->args[2] & PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED)
+                       err = pwm_set_polarity(pwm, PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED);
+               else
+                       err = pwm_set_polarity(pwm, PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL);
+
+               pwm_put(pwm);
+               return ERR_PTR(err);
+       }
 
        return pwm;
 }
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_pwm_xlate);
+
+struct pwm_device *
+of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc, const struct of_phandle_args 
*args)
+{
+       if (pc->of_pwm_n_cells < 3)
+               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+
+       if (args->args_count != pc->of_pwm_n_cells)
+               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+
+       return of_pwm_xlate(pc, args);
+}
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pwm_xlate_with_flags);
 
 static struct pwm_device *
 of_pwm_simple_xlate(struct pwm_chip *pc, const struct of_phandle_args *args)
 {
-       struct pwm_device *pwm;
-
        if (pc->of_pwm_n_cells < 2)
                return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
-       if (args->args[0] >= pc->npwm)
+       if (args->args_count != pc->of_pwm_n_cells)
                return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
-       pwm = pwm_request_from_chip(pc, args->args[0], NULL);
-       if (IS_ERR(pwm))
-               return pwm;
-
-       pwm_set_period(pwm, args->args[1]);
-
-       return pwm;
+       return of_pwm_xlate(pc, args);
 }
 
 static void of_pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip)
@@ -536,16 +545,12 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, 
const char *con_id)
                goto put;
        }
 
-       if (args.args_count != pc->of_pwm_n_cells) {
-               pr_debug("%s: wrong #pwm-cells for %s\n", np->full_name,
-                        args.np->full_name);
-               pwm = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
-               goto put;
-       }
-
        pwm = pc->of_xlate(pc, &args);
-       if (IS_ERR(pwm))
+       if (IS_ERR(pwm)) {
+               pr_debug("%s: of_xlate failed for %s: %d\n", np->full_name,
+                        args.np->full_name, (int)PTR_ERR(pwm));
                goto put;
+       }
 
        /*
         * If a consumer name was not given, try to look it up from the
diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
index f0feafd184a0..14a823f77c31 100644
--- a/include/linux/pwm.h
+++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
@@ -188,6 +188,8 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_request_from_chip(struct pwm_chip 
*chip,
                                         unsigned int index,
                                         const char *label);
 
+struct pwm_device *of_pwm_xlate(struct pwm_chip *pc,
+               const struct of_phandle_args *args);
 struct pwm_device *of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc,
                const struct of_phandle_args *args);
 


-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: 5.8Mbps down 500kbps up.  Estimation
in database were 13.1 to 19Mbit for a good line, about 7.5+ for a bad.
Estimate before purchase was "up to 13.2Mbit".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to