| Message ID | 1447664207-24370-5-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field. > Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic > update. > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> > --- > Patch generated with the following coccinelle script: > > --->8--- > virtual patch > > @@ > struct pwm_device *p; > expression e; > @@ > ( > -(p)->polarity = e; > +pwm_set_polarity((p), e); > | > -(p)->polarity > +pwm_get_polarity((p)) s/((p))/(p)/ > | > -(p)->period = e; > +pwm_set_period((p), e); > | > -(p)->period > +pwm_get_period((p)) s/((p))/(p)/ > | > -(p)->duty_cycle = e; > +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e); The (p) seems unnecessary here. > | > -(p)->duty_cycle > +pwm_get_duty_cycle((p)) s/((p))/(p)/ > ) > --->8--- > --- > drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c | 13 +++++++------ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c > index 3e23003..105b964 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c > @@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ static int __set_pwm(struct pwm_fan_ctx *ctx, unsigned long pwm) > if (ctx->pwm_value == pwm) > goto exit_set_pwm_err; > > - duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM); > - ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period); > + duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1), MAX_PWM); > + ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm))); Please drop all the unnecessary ( ). Thanks, Guenter > if (ret) > goto exit_set_pwm_err; > > @@ -234,10 +234,10 @@ static int pwm_fan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ctx); > > /* Set duty cycle to maximum allowed */ > - duty_cycle = ctx->pwm->period - 1; > + duty_cycle = pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1; > ctx->pwm_value = MAX_PWM; > > - ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty_cycle, ctx->pwm->period); > + ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty_cycle, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm))); > if (ret) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM\n"); > return ret; > @@ -309,8 +309,9 @@ static int pwm_fan_resume(struct device *dev) > if (ctx->pwm_value == 0) > return 0; > > - duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(ctx->pwm_value * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM); > - ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period); > + duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(ctx->pwm_value * (pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1), > + MAX_PWM); > + ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm))); > if (ret) > return ret; > return pwm_enable(ctx->pwm); >
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800 Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field. > > Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic > > update. > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> > > --- > > Patch generated with the following coccinelle script: > > > > --->8--- > > virtual patch > > > > @@ > > struct pwm_device *p; > > expression e; > > @@ > > ( > > -(p)->polarity = e; > > +pwm_set_polarity((p), e); > > | > > -(p)->polarity > > +pwm_get_polarity((p)) > > s/((p))/(p)/ > > > | > > -(p)->period = e; > > +pwm_set_period((p), e); > > | > > -(p)->period > > +pwm_get_period((p)) > > s/((p))/(p)/ > > > | > > -(p)->duty_cycle = e; > > +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e); > > The (p) seems unnecessary here. I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around p, right?
On 11/16/2015 08:53 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800 > Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > >> On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field. >>> Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic >>> update. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> >>> --- >>> Patch generated with the following coccinelle script: >>> >>> --->8--- >>> virtual patch >>> >>> @@ >>> struct pwm_device *p; >>> expression e; >>> @@ >>> ( >>> -(p)->polarity = e; >>> +pwm_set_polarity((p), e); >>> | >>> -(p)->polarity >>> +pwm_get_polarity((p)) >> >> s/((p))/(p)/ >> >>> | >>> -(p)->period = e; >>> +pwm_set_period((p), e); >>> | >>> -(p)->period >>> +pwm_get_period((p)) >> >> s/((p))/(p)/ >> >>> | >>> -(p)->duty_cycle = e; >>> +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e); >> >> The (p) seems unnecessary here. > > I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around > p, right? > Same as above - s/(p)/p/. It should never be necessary to write pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e) since pwm_set_duty_cycle(p, e) should be the same. On the other side, I did not see this expression used in any of the patches, though maybe I missed it. Thanks, Guenter
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c index 3e23003..105b964 100644 --- a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c @@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ static int __set_pwm(struct pwm_fan_ctx *ctx, unsigned long pwm) if (ctx->pwm_value == pwm) goto exit_set_pwm_err; - duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM); - ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period); + duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1), MAX_PWM); + ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm))); if (ret) goto exit_set_pwm_err; @@ -234,10 +234,10 @@ static int pwm_fan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ctx); /* Set duty cycle to maximum allowed */ - duty_cycle = ctx->pwm->period - 1; + duty_cycle = pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1; ctx->pwm_value = MAX_PWM; - ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty_cycle, ctx->pwm->period); + ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty_cycle, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm))); if (ret) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM\n"); return ret; @@ -309,8 +309,9 @@ static int pwm_fan_resume(struct device *dev) if (ctx->pwm_value == 0) return 0; - duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(ctx->pwm_value * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM); - ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period); + duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(ctx->pwm_value * (pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1), + MAX_PWM); + ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm))); if (ret) return ret; return pwm_enable(ctx->pwm);
Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field. Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic update. Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> --- Patch generated with the following coccinelle script: --->8--- virtual patch @@ struct pwm_device *p; expression e; @@ ( -(p)->polarity = e; +pwm_set_polarity((p), e); | -(p)->polarity +pwm_get_polarity((p)) | -(p)->period = e; +pwm_set_period((p), e); | -(p)->period +pwm_get_period((p)) | -(p)->duty_cycle = e; +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e); | -(p)->duty_cycle +pwm_get_duty_cycle((p)) ) --->8--- --- drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c | 13 +++++++------ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)