| Message ID | 1445895161-2317-2-git-send-email-o.schinagl@ultimaker.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
(+ Ariel) Hi Oliver, Not sure why there's some many people in Cc for such a silly change. I guess you are using get_maintainers.pl on the entire patchset and get this rather long list. IMO, the value of submitting patches as part of a larger series is to be able to push patches that need to be applied in some given order, or otherwise have some kind of logical relationship between them. However, this is not the case: it's just a very small change and has no relation to the rest of the patches in the series. I think a simple standalone patch would be better here. Also, get_maintainer.pl is just a hint, and not meant to be used as-is. In particular, you are missing the driver's author. On 26 October 2015 at 18:32, Olliver Schinagl <o.schinagl@ultimaker.com> wrote: > From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> > > The lpc18xx driver currently manipulates the pwm_device struct directly > rather then using the pwm_set_chip_data. While the current method may > save a clock cycle or two, it is more obvious that data is set to the > chip pointer (especially since it is only a single int holding struct. > > Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c | 11 +++++++---- > drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 11 +++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > ...and this diffstat is obviously fishy.
Hey Ezequiel, On October 26, 2015 10:58:18 PM CET, Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote: >(+ Ariel) > >Hi Oliver, > >Not sure why there's some many people in Cc for such a silly change. >I guess you are using get_maintainers.pl on the entire patchset and get >this rather long list. > I did indeed use the script and for v2 i'll split it up in several patches. The grouping that made sense to me was it was all pwm related. I'll do better next time. Sorry. >IMO, the value of submitting patches as part of a larger series is to >be able to >push patches that need to be applied in some given order, or otherwise >have some kind of logical relationship between them. > >However, this is not the case: it's just a very small change and has >no relation to the rest of the patches in the series. >I think a simple standalone patch would be better here. > >Also, get_maintainer.pl is just a hint, and not meant to be used as-is. >In particular, you are missing the driver's author. > >On 26 October 2015 at 18:32, Olliver Schinagl ><o.schinagl@ultimaker.com> wrote: >> From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >> >> The lpc18xx driver currently manipulates the pwm_device struct >directly >> rather then using the pwm_set_chip_data. While the current method may >> save a clock cycle or two, it is more obvious that data is set to the >> chip pointer (especially since it is only a single int holding >struct. >> >> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >> --- >> drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c | 11 +++++++---- >> drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 11 +++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > >...and this diffstat is obviously fishy. It does.indeed, somehow i.must have accidentally merged two patches, stupid me. This.will also be addressed in the v2. Olliver
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c index 9163085..0ab59f1 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c @@ -408,14 +408,17 @@ static int lpc18xx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) } for (i = 0; i < lpc18xx_pwm->chip.npwm; i++) { + struct lpc18xx_pwm_data *lpc18xx_data; + pwm = &lpc18xx_pwm->chip.pwms[i]; - pwm->chip_data = devm_kzalloc(lpc18xx_pwm->dev, - sizeof(struct lpc18xx_pwm_data), - GFP_KERNEL); - if (!pwm->chip_data) { + lpc18xx_data = devm_kzalloc(lpc18xx_pwm->dev, + sizeof(struct lpc18xx_pwm_data), + GFP_KERNEL); + if (!lpc18xx_data) { ret = -ENOMEM; goto remove_pwmchip; } + pwm_set_chip_data(pwm, lpc18xx_data); } platform_set_drvdata(pdev, lpc18xx_pwm); diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c index cd9dde5..5ec4e8e 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ #include <linux/bitops.h> #include <linux/clk.h> +#include <linux/delay.h> #include <linux/err.h> #include <linux/io.h> #include <linux/module.h> @@ -244,6 +245,16 @@ static void sun4i_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) spin_lock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock); val = sun4i_pwm_readl(sun4i_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG); val &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_EN, pwm->hwpwm); + sun4i_pwm_writel(sun4i_pwm, val, PWM_CTRL_REG); + spin_unlock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock); + + /* Allow for the PWM hardware to finish its last toggle. The pulse + * may have just started and thus we should wait a full period. + */ + ndelay(pwm_get_period(pwm)); + + spin_lock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock); + val = sun4i_pwm_readl(sun4i_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG); val &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_CLK_GATING, pwm->hwpwm); sun4i_pwm_writel(sun4i_pwm, val, PWM_CTRL_REG); spin_unlock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock);