On 19 October 2012 15:31, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:29:43AM +0530, Shiraz HASHIM wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:11:06PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Shiraz Hashim
>> > wrote:
>> > > + pc->mmio_base = devm_request_and_ioremap
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:29:43AM +0530, Shiraz HASHIM wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:11:06PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> > > + pc->mmio_base = devm_request_and_ioremap(&pdev->dev, r);
> > > + if (!pc->mmio_base)
> > > +
On 19 October 2012 15:13, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> It may not be required as pwms which are not enabled do not have
> their clocks enabled. Hence, perhaps we can do following,
>
> 8<---
> static int spear_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct spear_pwm
Hi Viresh,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:23:08PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:11:06PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Shiraz Hashim
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > +static int __devexit spe
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:11:06PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
>> > +static int __devexit spear_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> > +{
>> > + struct spear_pwm_chip *pc
On 19 October 2012 11:29, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
>> > + clk_disable_unprepare(pc->clk);
>>
>> call only disable from here. Leave it prepared for ever.
>>
>
> and unprepare only in _remove. Okay.
yes.
> I need to shut down all active pwms, how else would you suggest that ?
I misread
Hi Viresh,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:11:06PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/st-spear-pwm.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/st-spear-pwm.txt
> > +== ST SPEAr SoC PWM controlle
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
>> Is there a reason to make this conditional? It looks like SPEAr has
>> moved to OF, so this will always be enabled anyway, won't it?
>
> Yes, I would remove it, SPEAr cannot boot without DT.
Add a dependency on OF in the Kconfig then.
Also
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/st-spear-pwm.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/st-spear-pwm.txt
> +== ST SPEAr SoC PWM controller ==
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: should be one of:
> + - "st,spe
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 06:59:28PM +0530, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> Thanks for the quick review.
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:08:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 04:58:32PM +0530, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
[...]
> > > + first cell specifies the per-chip ind
Hi Thierry,
Thanks for the quick review.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:08:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 04:58:32PM +0530, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> > Add support for pwm devices present on SPEAr platforms. These pwm
> > devices support 4 channel output with programmable d
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 04:58:32PM +0530, Shiraz Hashim wrote:
> Add support for pwm devices present on SPEAr platforms. These pwm
> devices support 4 channel output with programmable duty cycle and
> frequency.
>
> More details on these pwm devices can be obtained from relevant chapter
> of refe
Add support for pwm devices present on SPEAr platforms. These pwm
devices support 4 channel output with programmable duty cycle and
frequency.
More details on these pwm devices can be obtained from relevant chapter
of reference manual, present at following[1] location.
1. http://www.st.com/inter
13 matches
Mail list logo
