Hello,

just a few small details left to criticize ...

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:08:37AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-visconti.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-visconti.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..99d83f94ed86
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-visconti.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/*
> + * Toshiba Visconti pulse-width-modulation controller driver
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2020 TOSHIBA CORPORATION
> + * Copyright (c) 2020 Toshiba Electronic Devices & Storage Corporation
> + *
> + * Authors: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@toshiba.co.jp>
> + *
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> +
> +#define PIPGM_PCSR(ch) (0x400 + 4 * (ch))
> +#define PIPGM_PDUT(ch) (0x420 + 4 * (ch))
> +#define PIPGM_PWMC(ch) (0x440 + 4 * (ch))
> +
> +#define PIPGM_PWMC_PWMACT		BIT(5)
> +#define PIPGM_PWMC_CLK_MASK		GENMASK(1, 0)
> +#define PIPGM_PWMC_POLARITY_MASK	GENMASK(5, 5)
> +
> +struct visconti_pwm_chip {
> +	struct pwm_chip chip;
> +	void __iomem *base;
> +};
> +
> +static inline struct visconti_pwm_chip *to_visconti_chip(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> +{
> +	return container_of(chip, struct visconti_pwm_chip, chip);
> +}
> +
> +static int visconti_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +			      const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct visconti_pwm_chip *priv = to_visconti_chip(chip);
> +	u32 period, duty_cycle, pwmc0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * pwmc is a 2-bit divider for the input clock running at 1 MHz.
> +	 * When the settings of the PWM are modified, the new values are shadowed in hardware until
> +	 * the period register (PCSR) is written and the currently running period is completed. This
> +	 * way the hardware switches atomically from the old setting to the new.
> +	 * Also, disabling the hardware completes the currently running period and keeps the output
> +	 * at low level at all times.

Can you please put a paragraph analogous to the one in pwm-sifive in the
same format. This simplified keeping an overview about the oddities of
the various supported chips.

> +	 */
> +	if (!state->enabled) {
> +		writel(0, priv->base + PIPGM_PCSR(pwm->hwpwm));
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> [...]
> +
> +static void visconti_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +				   struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct visconti_pwm_chip *priv = chip_to_priv(chip);
> +	u32 period, duty, pwmc0, pwmc0_clk;
> +
> +	period = readl(priv->base + PIPGM_PCSR(pwm->hwpwm));
> +	if (period)
> +		state->enabled = true;
> +	else
> +		state->enabled = false;

If PIPGM_PCSR is 0 the hardware is still active and setting a new
configuration completes the currently running period, right? Then I
think having always state->enabled = true is a better match.

> +	duty = readl(priv->base + PIPGM_PDUT(pwm->hwpwm));
> +	pwmc0 = readl(priv->base + PIPGM_PWMC(pwm->hwpwm));
> +	pwmc0_clk = pwmc0 & PIPGM_PWMC_CLK_MASK;
> +
> +	state->period = (period << pwmc0_clk) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> +	state->duty_cycle = (duty << pwmc0_clk) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> +	if (pwmc0 & PIPGM_PWMC_POLARITY_MASK)
> +		state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
> +	else
> +		state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> +}
> +
> [...]
> +
> +static int visconti_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	struct visconti_pwm_chip *priv;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!priv)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	priv->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> +	if (IS_ERR(priv->base))
> +		return PTR_ERR(priv->base);
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv);
> +
> +	priv->chip.dev = dev;
> +	priv->chip.ops = &visconti_pwm_ops;
> +	priv->chip.npwm = 4;
> +
> +	ret = pwmchip_add(&priv->chip);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Cannot register visconti PWM\n");

Thierry told to have picked up my patch to add the function
devm_pwmchip_add. I just double checked and it didn't made it into his
for-next branch yet. When you respin this series please check if the
patch landed in the mean time and then make use of it.

> +	return 0;
> +}

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |