Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] pwm: add PWM mode to pwm_config()

[Claudiu Beznea]

On 22.02.2018 15:01, Sean Young wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:01:16PM +0200, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
>> Add PWM mode to pwm_config() function. The drivers which uses pwm_config()
>> were adapted to this change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
> 
> -snip-
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/rc/ir-rx51.c b/drivers/media/rc/ir-rx51.c
>> index 49265f02e772..a971b02ea021 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/rc/ir-rx51.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/rc/ir-rx51.c
>> @@ -55,10 +55,13 @@ static int init_timing_params(struct ir_rx51 *ir_rx51)
>>  {
>>  	struct pwm_device *pwm = ir_rx51->pwm;
>>  	int duty, period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(NSEC_PER_SEC, ir_rx51->freq);
>> +	struct pwm_caps caps = { };
>>  
>>  	duty = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ir_rx51->duty_cycle * period, 100);
>>  
>> -	pwm_config(pwm, duty, period);
>> +	pwm_get_caps(pwm->chip, pwm, &caps);
>> +
>> +	pwm_config(pwm, duty, period, BIT(ffs(caps.modes) - 1));
>>  
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c b/drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c
>> index 27d0f5837a76..c630e1b450a3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c
>> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ static int pwm_ir_tx(struct rc_dev *dev, unsigned int *txbuf,
>>  {
>>  	struct pwm_ir *pwm_ir = dev->priv;
>>  	struct pwm_device *pwm = pwm_ir->pwm;
>> +	struct pwm_caps caps = { };
>>  	int i, duty, period;
>>  	ktime_t edge;
>>  	long delta;
>> @@ -68,7 +69,9 @@ static int pwm_ir_tx(struct rc_dev *dev, unsigned int *txbuf,
>>  	period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(NSEC_PER_SEC, pwm_ir->carrier);
>>  	duty = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(pwm_ir->duty_cycle * period, 100);
>>  
>> -	pwm_config(pwm, duty, period);
>> +	pwm_get_caps(pwm->chip, pwm, &caps);
>> +
>> +	pwm_config(pwm, duty, period, BIT(ffs(caps.modes) - 1));
>>  
>>  	edge = ktime_get();
>>  
> 
> The two PWM rc-core drivers need PWM_MODE(NORMAL), not the first available
> mode that the device supports. If mode normal is not supported, then probe
> should fail.
OK, thank you for your inputs. I will address this in next version.


Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea
> 
> 
> Sean
>