diff mbox

[v5,36/46] input: misc: max77693: switch to the atomic API

Message ID 1459368249-13241-37-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Boris BREZILLON March 30, 2016, 8:03 p.m. UTC
pwm_config/enable/disable() have been deprecated and should be replaced
by pwm_apply_state().

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
---
 drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Dmitry Torokhov March 31, 2016, 5:48 p.m. UTC | #1
Hi Boris,

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:59PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> pwm_config/enable/disable() have been deprecated and should be replaced
> by pwm_apply_state().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
>  drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> index cf6aac0..aef7dc4 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> @@ -70,13 +70,16 @@ struct max77693_haptic {
>  
>  static int max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
>  {
> +	struct pwm_state pstate;
>  	struct pwm_args pargs = { };
> -	int delta;
>  	int error;
>  
>  	pwm_get_args(haptic->pwm_dev, &pargs);
> -	delta = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
> -	error = pwm_config(haptic->pwm_dev, delta, pargs.period);
> +	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> +
> +	pstate.period = pargs.period;
> +	pstate.duty_cycle = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
> +	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);

This does not make sense with regard to the atomic API. If you look in
max77693_haptic_play_work(), right after calling
max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle() we either try to enable or disable the
pwm. When switching to this new API we should combine both actions.

>  	if (error) {
>  		dev_err(haptic->dev, "failed to configure pwm: %d\n", error);
>  		return error;
> @@ -161,12 +164,16 @@ static int max77693_haptic_lowsys(struct max77693_haptic *haptic, bool enable)
>  
>  static void max77693_haptic_enable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
>  {
> +	struct pwm_state pstate;
>  	int error;
>  
>  	if (haptic->enabled)
>  		return;
>  
> -	error = pwm_enable(haptic->pwm_dev);
> +	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> +	pstate.enabled = true;
> +
> +	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);

As I mentioned I'd rather we did not deprecate pwm_enable() and
pwm_disable() (and maybe others), as it forces us to add unnecessary
boilerplate code to the drivers.
 
>  	if (error) {
>  		dev_err(haptic->dev,
>  			"failed to enable haptic pwm device: %d\n", error);
> @@ -188,11 +195,13 @@ static void max77693_haptic_enable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
>  err_enable_config:
>  	max77693_haptic_lowsys(haptic, false);
>  err_enable_lowsys:
> -	pwm_disable(haptic->pwm_dev);
> +	pstate.enabled = false;
> +	pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
>  }
>  
>  static void max77693_haptic_disable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
>  {
> +	struct pwm_state pstate;
>  	int error;
>  
>  	if (!haptic->enabled)
> @@ -206,7 +215,9 @@ static void max77693_haptic_disable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
>  	if (error)
>  		goto err_disable_lowsys;
>  
> -	pwm_disable(haptic->pwm_dev);
> +	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> +	pstate.enabled = false;
> +	pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);

Same here.

>  	haptic->enabled = false;
>  
>  	return;
> -- 
> 2.5.0
> 

Thanks.
Boris BREZILLON March 31, 2016, 6:57 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:48:01 -0700
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:59PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > pwm_config/enable/disable() have been deprecated and should be replaced
> > by pwm_apply_state().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> > index cf6aac0..aef7dc4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> > @@ -70,13 +70,16 @@ struct max77693_haptic {
> >  
> >  static int max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
> >  {
> > +	struct pwm_state pstate;
> >  	struct pwm_args pargs = { };
> > -	int delta;
> >  	int error;
> >  
> >  	pwm_get_args(haptic->pwm_dev, &pargs);
> > -	delta = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
> > -	error = pwm_config(haptic->pwm_dev, delta, pargs.period);
> > +	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> > +
> > +	pstate.period = pargs.period;
> > +	pstate.duty_cycle = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
> > +	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> 
> This does not make sense with regard to the atomic API. If you look in
> max77693_haptic_play_work(), right after calling
> max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle() we either try to enable or disable the
> pwm. When switching to this new API we should combine both actions.

True. I'll address that, unless Thierry is fine keeping the non-atomic
API, in which case I'll just drop patches 32 to 46.

> 
> >  	if (error) {
> >  		dev_err(haptic->dev, "failed to configure pwm: %d\n", error);
> >  		return error;
> > @@ -161,12 +164,16 @@ static int max77693_haptic_lowsys(struct max77693_haptic *haptic, bool enable)
> >  
> >  static void max77693_haptic_enable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
> >  {
> > +	struct pwm_state pstate;
> >  	int error;
> >  
> >  	if (haptic->enabled)
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	error = pwm_enable(haptic->pwm_dev);
> > +	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> > +	pstate.enabled = true;
> > +
> > +	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> 
> As I mentioned I'd rather we did not deprecate pwm_enable() and
> pwm_disable() (and maybe others), as it forces us to add unnecessary
> boilerplate code to the drivers.
>  
> >  	if (error) {
> >  		dev_err(haptic->dev,
> >  			"failed to enable haptic pwm device: %d\n", error);
> > @@ -188,11 +195,13 @@ static void max77693_haptic_enable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
> >  err_enable_config:
> >  	max77693_haptic_lowsys(haptic, false);
> >  err_enable_lowsys:
> > -	pwm_disable(haptic->pwm_dev);
> > +	pstate.enabled = false;
> > +	pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void max77693_haptic_disable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
> >  {
> > +	struct pwm_state pstate;
> >  	int error;
> >  
> >  	if (!haptic->enabled)
> > @@ -206,7 +215,9 @@ static void max77693_haptic_disable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
> >  	if (error)
> >  		goto err_disable_lowsys;
> >  
> > -	pwm_disable(haptic->pwm_dev);
> > +	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> > +	pstate.enabled = false;
> > +	pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> 
> Same here.
> 
> >  	haptic->enabled = false;
> >  
> >  	return;
> > -- 
> > 2.5.0
> > 
> 
> Thanks.
>
Thierry Reding April 4, 2016, 3:34 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:57:18PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:48:01 -0700
> Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Boris,
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:59PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > pwm_config/enable/disable() have been deprecated and should be replaced
> > > by pwm_apply_state().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> > > index cf6aac0..aef7dc4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> > > @@ -70,13 +70,16 @@ struct max77693_haptic {
> > >  
> > >  static int max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
> > >  {
> > > +	struct pwm_state pstate;
> > >  	struct pwm_args pargs = { };
> > > -	int delta;
> > >  	int error;
> > >  
> > >  	pwm_get_args(haptic->pwm_dev, &pargs);
> > > -	delta = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
> > > -	error = pwm_config(haptic->pwm_dev, delta, pargs.period);
> > > +	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> > > +
> > > +	pstate.period = pargs.period;
> > > +	pstate.duty_cycle = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
> > > +	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
> > 
> > This does not make sense with regard to the atomic API. If you look in
> > max77693_haptic_play_work(), right after calling
> > max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle() we either try to enable or disable the
> > pwm. When switching to this new API we should combine both actions.
> 
> True. I'll address that, unless Thierry is fine keeping the non-atomic
> API, in which case I'll just drop patches 32 to 46.

I'm fine with keeping the pwm_enable(), pwm_disable() and pwm_config()
APIs, but they should only be used as shortcuts. Where possible the new
atomic API should be used to combine multiple operations into one.

Thierry
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
index cf6aac0..aef7dc4 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
@@ -70,13 +70,16 @@  struct max77693_haptic {
 
 static int max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 {
+	struct pwm_state pstate;
 	struct pwm_args pargs = { };
-	int delta;
 	int error;
 
 	pwm_get_args(haptic->pwm_dev, &pargs);
-	delta = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
-	error = pwm_config(haptic->pwm_dev, delta, pargs.period);
+	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
+
+	pstate.period = pargs.period;
+	pstate.duty_cycle = (pargs.period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
+	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
 	if (error) {
 		dev_err(haptic->dev, "failed to configure pwm: %d\n", error);
 		return error;
@@ -161,12 +164,16 @@  static int max77693_haptic_lowsys(struct max77693_haptic *haptic, bool enable)
 
 static void max77693_haptic_enable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 {
+	struct pwm_state pstate;
 	int error;
 
 	if (haptic->enabled)
 		return;
 
-	error = pwm_enable(haptic->pwm_dev);
+	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
+	pstate.enabled = true;
+
+	error = pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
 	if (error) {
 		dev_err(haptic->dev,
 			"failed to enable haptic pwm device: %d\n", error);
@@ -188,11 +195,13 @@  static void max77693_haptic_enable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 err_enable_config:
 	max77693_haptic_lowsys(haptic, false);
 err_enable_lowsys:
-	pwm_disable(haptic->pwm_dev);
+	pstate.enabled = false;
+	pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
 }
 
 static void max77693_haptic_disable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 {
+	struct pwm_state pstate;
 	int error;
 
 	if (!haptic->enabled)
@@ -206,7 +215,9 @@  static void max77693_haptic_disable(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
 	if (error)
 		goto err_disable_lowsys;
 
-	pwm_disable(haptic->pwm_dev);
+	pwm_get_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
+	pstate.enabled = false;
+	pwm_apply_state(haptic->pwm_dev, &pstate);
 	haptic->enabled = false;
 
 	return;