lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3 1/3] pwm: make the PWM_POLARITY flag in DTB optional
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 07:53:50AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -183,8 +173,11 @@ static void of_pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> > return;
> >
> > if (!chip->of_xlate) {
> > - chip->of_xlate = of_pwm_simple_xlate;
> > - chip->of_pwm_n_cells = 2;
> > + chip->of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate;
> > + if (chip->ops->set_polarity)
> > + chip->of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
> > + else
> > + chip->of_pwm_n_cells = 2;
>
> I think the presence of the set_polarity callback shouldn't influence
> the number of cells the parser expects. As commented on 2/2 this doesn't
> actually mean the device actually support polarity inversion.

How so? A driver should only implement .set_polarity() if it supports
changing the polarity.

That said, I agree that the presence of .set_polarity() shouldn't
determine the number of cells. You could have any number of other flags
set via the third cell.

> Also, polarity inversion could still be done in software for hardware
> that doesn't support it.

No. You cannot emulate polarity inversion in software.

Thierry
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-07 14:21    [W:0.141 / U:3.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site