On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:05:20AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:07AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
[...]
> >> @@ -74,10 +78,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
> >>  {
> >>       struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >>       u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> -                       PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE |
> >> -                       PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> +                       PWM_CONTINUOUS;
> >>       u32 val;
> >>
> >> +     if (pc->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> >> +             enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
> >> +     else
> >> +             enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >
> > I have a feeling you're going to answer the above question with: "Because
> > it's needed here". If so, my reply would be: "Then this function should
> > take a struct pwm_device instead of struct pwm_chip."
> 
> OK.  I've chosen to have it take a pwm_device AND a pwm_chip.  It is a
> little redundant because a pwm_device has a pointer to its pwm_chip,
> but it follows the lead of all of the callbacks in "struct pwm_ops".
> If you'd like me to spin it to take only a pwm_device I'm happy to.

No, that's fine.

Thierry