[PATCH v4 0/2] This series adds support for RK3288 SoC integrated PWM

[PATCH v4 0/2] This series adds support for RK3288 SoC integrated PWM

[Caesar Wang]

This patch will make applying on the top of Beniamino's submission,
the Beniamino's submission come from [1].

[1]:
    https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git/log/?h=for-next

    Beniamino's submission won't be used from genenation Rockchip SoCs.
    So I have to add the new pwm for next genenation Rockchip SoCs.

    Tested on RK3288 SDK board.

Changes in v4:
    * address comments from Heiko St?bner:
    - fix the copyright for ROCKCHIP, Inc. 
    - remove rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop,then it instead of rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2.
   
Changes in v3:
    * address comments from Thierry Reding:
    - fix PWM document deccribes. 
    - add a description for [PATCH v3 2/2].
    - renamed the PWM registers
    - Changed in rockchip_pwm_data struct
    - remove the devm_ioremap(),fixed in lcdc driver.

Changes in v2:
    * address comments from Beniamino Galvani:
    - remove #include <linux/of_address.h>. 
    - of_iomap be removed,and devm_ioremap replace it.
    - remove a line no be used.

Caesar Wang (2):
  pwm: rockchip: document RK3288 SoC compatible
  pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

 .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt       |   5 +-
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c                         | 124 +++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH v4 1/2] pwm: rockchip: document RK3288 SoC compatible

[Caesar Wang]

Document new compatible for PWM founding on RK3288 SoC

Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
index 3182126..d47d15a 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
@@ -1,7 +1,10 @@
 Rockchip PWM controller
 
 Required properties:
- - compatible: should be "rockchip,rk2928-pwm"
+ - compatible: should be "rockchip,<name>-pwm"
+   "rockchip,rk2928-pwm": found on RK29XX,RK3066 and RK3188 SoCs
+   "rockchip,rk3288-pwm": found on RK3288 SoC
+   "rockchip,vop-pwm": found integrated in VOP on RK3288 SoC
  - reg: physical base address and length of the controller's registers
  - clocks: phandle and clock specifier of the PWM reference clock
  - #pwm-cells: should be 2. See pwm.txt in this directory for a
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[Caesar Wang]

This patch added to support the PWM controller found on
RK3288 SoC.

Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index eec2145..59c2513 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
  * PWM driver for Rockchip SoCs
  *
  * Copyright (C) 2014 Beniamino Galvani <b.galvani@gmail.com>
+ * Copyright (C) 2014 ROCKCHIP, Inc.
  *
  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
  * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
@@ -12,6 +13,7 @@
 #include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/of_device.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 #include <linux/pwm.h>
 #include <linux/time.h>
@@ -25,17 +27,72 @@
 
 #define PRESCALER		2
 
+#define PWM_ENABLE		(1 << 0)
+#define PWM_CONTINUOUS		(1 << 1)
+#define PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE	(1 << 3)
+#define PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE	(0 << 4)
+#define PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT		(0 << 5)
+#define PWM_LP_DISABLE		(0 << 8)
+
 struct rockchip_pwm_chip {
 	struct pwm_chip chip;
 	struct clk *clk;
+	const struct rockchip_pwm_data *data;
 	void __iomem *base;
 };
 
+struct rockchip_pwm_regs {
+	unsigned long duty;
+	unsigned long period;
+	unsigned long cntr;
+	unsigned long ctrl;
+};
+
+struct rockchip_pwm_data {
+	struct rockchip_pwm_regs regs;
+	unsigned int prescaler;
+
+	void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable);
+};
+
 static inline struct rockchip_pwm_chip *to_rockchip_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *c)
 {
 	return container_of(c, struct rockchip_pwm_chip, chip);
 }
 
+static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
+{
+	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
+	u32 val = 0;
+	u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
+
+	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
+
+	if (enable)
+		val |= enable_conf;
+	else
+		val &= ~enable_conf;
+
+	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
+}
+
+static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
+{
+	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
+	u32 val = 0;
+	u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
+		PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
+
+	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
+
+	if (enable)
+		val |= enable_conf;
+	else
+		val &= ~enable_conf;
+
+	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
+}
+
 static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			       int duty_ns, int period_ns)
 {
@@ -52,20 +109,20 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	 * default prescaler value for all practical clock rate values.
 	 */
 	div = clk_rate * period_ns;
-	do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
+	do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
 	period = div;
 
 	div = clk_rate * duty_ns;
-	do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
+	do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
 	duty = div;
 
 	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	writel(period, pc->base + PWM_LRC);
-	writel(duty, pc->base + PWM_HRC);
-	writel(0, pc->base + PWM_CNTR);
+	writel(period, pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
+	writel(duty, pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
+	writel(0, pc->base + pc->data->regs.cntr);
 
 	clk_disable(pc->clk);
 
@@ -76,15 +133,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
 	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
 	int ret;
-	u32 val;
 
 	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
-	val |= PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
-	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
+	pc->data->set_enable(chip, true);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -92,11 +146,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
 	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
-	u32 val;
 
-	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
-	val &= ~(PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN);
-	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
+	pc->data->set_enable(chip, false);
 
 	clk_disable(pc->clk);
 }
@@ -108,12 +159,52 @@ static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = {
 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 };
 
+static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
+	.regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
+	.regs.period = PWM_LRC,
+	.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
+	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
+	.prescaler = PRESCALER,
+	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
+};
+
+static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
+	.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
+	.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
+	.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
+	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
+	.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
+	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
+};
+
+static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
+	.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
+	.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
+	.regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
+	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
+	.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
+	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
+};
+
+static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
+	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_v1},
+	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_v2},
+	{ .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_vop},
+	{ /* sentinel */ }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
+
 static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
+	const struct of_device_id *id;
 	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
 	struct resource *r;
 	int ret;
 
+	id = of_match_device(rockchip_pwm_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
+	if (!id)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	pc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!pc)
 		return -ENOMEM;
@@ -133,6 +224,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
 
+	pc->data = id->data;
 	pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
 	pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
 	pc->chip.base = -1;
@@ -156,12 +248,6 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	return pwmchip_remove(&pc->chip);
 }
 
-static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
-	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm" },
-	{ /* sentinel */ }
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
-
 static struct platform_driver rockchip_pwm_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "rockchip-pwm",
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[Doug Anderson]

Caesar,

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,

Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
be:

 +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
 +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,

...but should be

 +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
 +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,

If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".


Have you validated Thierry's suggestion to allow you to access your
memory range?

-Doug

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[caesar]

Doug,

? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??:
> Caesar,
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
> be:
>
>   +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>   +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>
> ...but should be
>
>   +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>   +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>
> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".

Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and 
"rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .

>
> Have you validated Thierry's suggestion to allow you to access your
> memory range?
Yes,we have solve it in lcdc driver.
The Mark Yao have the  submission in [0].

[0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/4/20
>
> -Doug
>
>
>

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[Doug Anderson]

Caesar,

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> Doug,
>
> ? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??:
>
>> Caesar,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>
>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
>> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
>> be:
>>
>>   +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>   +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>
>> ...but should be
>>
>>   +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>   +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>
>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
>
>
> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .

OK, I looked up in the TRM.  Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
the vop.  So I think that the only change you need is to add:

#define PWM_VOP_CTRL  0x00
#define PWM_VOP_CNTR  0x0c

...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.


As you have the code written right now it's very confusing.  The new
#defines will fix this.


>> Have you validated Thierry's suggestion to allow you to access your
>> memory range?
>
> Yes,we have solve it in lcdc driver.
> The Mark Yao have the  submission in [0].
>
> [0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/4/20

Excellent!  Then we should be able to land after you fix the above.

-Doug

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[caesar]

? 2014?08?07? 10:16, Doug Anderson ??:
> Caesar,
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Doug,
>>
>> ? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??:
>>
>>> Caesar,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
>>> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
>>> be:
>>>
>>>    +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>    +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>
>>> ...but should be
>>>
>>>    +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>    +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>
>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
>>
>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .
> OK, I looked up in the TRM.  Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
> the vop.  So I think that the only change you need is to add:
>
> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL  0x00
> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR  0x0c
>
> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.
>
>
> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing.  The new
> #defines will fix this.
>
yeah, I think they can be used in the same context.

I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need.
>   
>>> Have you validated Thierry's suggestion to allow you to access your
>>> memory range?
>> Yes,we have solve it in lcdc driver.
>> The Mark Yao have the  submission in [0].
>>
>> [0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/4/20
> Excellent!  Then we should be able to land after you fix the above.
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
OK,Thanks!

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[Doug Anderson]

caesar,

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>
> ? 2014?08?07? 10:16, Doug Anderson ??:
>
>> Caesar,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>> ? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??:
>>>
>>>> Caesar,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang
>>>> <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>
>>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
>>>> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
>>>> be:
>>>>
>>>>    +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>    +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>
>>>> ...but should be
>>>>
>>>>    +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>    +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>
>>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
>>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
>>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
>>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
>>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
>>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .
>>
>> OK, I looked up in the TRM.  Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
>> the vop.  So I think that the only change you need is to add:
>>
>> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL  0x00
>> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR  0x0c
>>
>> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.
>>
>>
>> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing.  The new
>> #defines will fix this.
>>
> yeah, I think they can be used in the same context.
>
> I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need.

I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then it's
really his decision.

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[caesar]

Doug,

? 2014?08?07? 11:26, Doug Anderson ??:
> caesar,
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> ? 2014?08?07? 10:16, Doug Anderson ??:
>>
>>> Caesar,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug,
>>>>
>>>> ? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??:
>>>>
>>>>> Caesar,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang
>>>>> <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
>>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
>>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
>>>>> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
>>>>> be:
>>>>>
>>>>>     +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>     +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but should be
>>>>>
>>>>>     +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>     +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>
>>>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
>>>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
>>>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
>>>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
>>>>
>>>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
>>>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
>>>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .
>>> OK, I looked up in the TRM.  Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
>>> the vop.  So I think that the only change you need is to add:
>>>
>>> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL  0x00
>>> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR  0x0c
>>>
>>> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.
>>>
>>>
>>> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing.  The new
>>> #defines will fix this.
>>>
>> yeah, I think they can be used in the same context.
>>
>> I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need.
> I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then it's
> really his decision.
I remember In patch v2 [1],Thierry suggests me to fix it so if I have no 
to get wrong.

[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113
>
>

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[Doug Anderson]

Caesar,

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:37 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> Doug,
>
> ? 2014?08?07? 11:26, Doug Anderson ??:
>
>> caesar,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ? 2014?08?07? 10:16, Doug Anderson ??:
>>>
>>>> Caesar,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug,
>>>>>
>>>>> ? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Caesar,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang
>>>>>> <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
>>>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
>>>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
>>>>>> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
>>>>>> be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>     +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but should be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>     +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
>>>>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
>>>>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
>>>>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
>>>>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
>>>>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .
>>>>
>>>> OK, I looked up in the TRM.  Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
>>>> the vop.  So I think that the only change you need is to add:
>>>>
>>>> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL  0x00
>>>> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR  0x0c
>>>>
>>>> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing.  The new
>>>> #defines will fix this.
>>>>
>>> yeah, I think they can be used in the same context.
>>>
>>> I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need.
>>
>> I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then it's
>> really his decision.
>
> I remember In patch v2 [1],Thierry suggests me to fix it so if I have no to
> get wrong.
>
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113

I think Thierry might not have realized that they were flipped...

-Doug

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[caesar]

Doug,
? 2014?08?07? 11:46, Doug Anderson ??:
> Caesar,
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:37 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Doug,
>>
>> ? 2014?08?07? 11:26, Doug Anderson ??:
>>
>>> caesar,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> ? 2014?08?07? 10:16, Doug Anderson ??:
>>>>
>>>>> Caesar,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Doug,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Caesar,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang
>>>>>>> <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
>>>>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
>>>>>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
>>>>>>> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
>>>>>>> be:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>>      +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...but should be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>>>>>>>      +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
>>>>>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
>>>>>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
>>>>>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
>>>>>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
>>>>>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .
>>>>> OK, I looked up in the TRM.  Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
>>>>> the vop.  So I think that the only change you need is to add:
>>>>>
>>>>> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL  0x00
>>>>> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR  0x0c
>>>>>
>>>>> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing.  The new
>>>>> #defines will fix this.
>>>>>
>>>> yeah, I think they can be used in the same context.
>>>>
>>>> I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need.
>>> I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then it's
>>> really his decision.
>> I remember In patch v2 [1],Thierry suggests me to fix it so if I have no to
>> get wrong.
>>
>> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113
> I think Thierry might not have realized that they were flipped...
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
Maybe you are right.
I will sent patch v5 fix the about tomorrow if it has no other problems.

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[Thierry Reding]

On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 08:26:51PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> caesar,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> >
> > ? 2014?08?07? 10:16, Doug Anderson ??:
> >
> >> Caesar,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Doug,
> >>>
> >>> ? 2014?08?07? 06:46, Doug Anderson ??:
> >>>
> >>>> Caesar,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Caesar Wang
> >>>> <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> >>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
> >>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
> >>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER,
> >>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> >>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> >>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> >>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >>>>> +       .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> >>>>> +       .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> >>>>> +       .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> >>>>> +       .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> >>>>> +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
> >>>>> +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you really mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here?  If so, that's super
> >>>> confusing and deserves a comment.  AKA, I think the above should not
> >>>> be:
> >>>>
> >>>>    +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
> >>>>    +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
> >>>>
> >>>> ...but should be
> >>>>
> >>>>    +       .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >>>>    +       .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >>>>
> >>>> If you didn't mean to flip CTRL and CNTR here, then just get rid of
> >>>> pwm_data_vop and refer to pwm_data_v2.  In fact, I'd suggest that you
> >>>> totally remove the "rockchip,vop-pwm" since there's nothing different
> >>>> between "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and "rockchip,vop-pwm".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry,I think it's no problem. the  "rockchip,rk3288-pwm" and
> >>> "rockchip,vop-pwm" are seperate PWM controllers.
> >>> They are just different registers address between CNTR and CTRL .
> >>
> >> OK, I looked up in the TRM.  Right, the CNTR and CTRL are flipped on
> >> the vop.  So I think that the only change you need is to add:
> >>
> >> #define PWM_VOP_CTRL  0x00
> >> #define PWM_VOP_CNTR  0x0c
> >>
> >> ...then use these new #defines for the vop structure.
> >>
> >>
> >> As you have the code written right now it's very confusing.  The new
> >> #defines will fix this.
> >>
> > yeah, I think they can be used in the same context.
> >
> > I will fix it in patch v5 if it is really need.
> 
> I think you should fix this, but if Thierry doesn't think so then it's
> really his decision.

Frankly, I'm fine if these don't use symbolic names at all since only
the structure fields are used to refer to them now.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140807/92aefac6/attachment.sig>

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[Thierry Reding]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 06:21:35PM +0800, Caesar Wang wrote:
> This patch added to support the PWM controller found on
> RK3288 SoC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> index eec2145..59c2513 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>   * PWM driver for Rockchip SoCs
>   *
>   * Copyright (C) 2014 Beniamino Galvani <b.galvani@gmail.com>
> + * Copyright (C) 2014 ROCKCHIP, Inc.
>   *
>   * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>   * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> @@ -12,6 +13,7 @@
>  #include <linux/io.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>  #include <linux/pwm.h>
>  #include <linux/time.h>
> @@ -25,17 +27,72 @@
>  
>  #define PRESCALER		2
>  
> +#define PWM_ENABLE		(1 << 0)
> +#define PWM_CONTINUOUS		(1 << 1)
> +#define PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE	(1 << 3)
> +#define PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE	(0 << 4)
> +#define PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT		(0 << 5)
> +#define PWM_LP_DISABLE		(0 << 8)
> +
>  struct rockchip_pwm_chip {
>  	struct pwm_chip chip;
>  	struct clk *clk;
> +	const struct rockchip_pwm_data *data;
>  	void __iomem *base;
>  };
>  
> +struct rockchip_pwm_regs {
> +	unsigned long duty;
> +	unsigned long period;
> +	unsigned long cntr;
> +	unsigned long ctrl;
> +};
> +
> +struct rockchip_pwm_data {
> +	struct rockchip_pwm_regs regs;
> +	unsigned int prescaler;
> +
> +	void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable);
> +};
> +
>  static inline struct rockchip_pwm_chip *to_rockchip_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *c)
>  {
>  	return container_of(c, struct rockchip_pwm_chip, chip);
>  }
>  
> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
> +{
> +	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	u32 val = 0;
> +	u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> +
> +	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +
> +	if (enable)
> +		val |= enable_conf;
> +	else
> +		val &= ~enable_conf;
> +
> +	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +}
> +
> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
> +{
> +	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	u32 val = 0;
> +	u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> +		PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> +
> +	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +
> +	if (enable)
> +		val |= enable_conf;
> +	else
> +		val &= ~enable_conf;
> +
> +	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +}
> +
>  static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  			       int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>  {
> @@ -52,20 +109,20 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  	 * default prescaler value for all practical clock rate values.
>  	 */
>  	div = clk_rate * period_ns;
> -	do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> +	do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
>  	period = div;
>  
>  	div = clk_rate * duty_ns;
> -	do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> +	do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
>  	duty = div;
>  
>  	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	writel(period, pc->base + PWM_LRC);
> -	writel(duty, pc->base + PWM_HRC);
> -	writel(0, pc->base + PWM_CNTR);
> +	writel(period, pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
> +	writel(duty, pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
> +	writel(0, pc->base + pc->data->regs.cntr);
>  
>  	clk_disable(pc->clk);
>  
> @@ -76,15 +133,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  {
>  	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>  	int ret;
> -	u32 val;
>  
>  	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> -	val |= PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> -	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> +	pc->data->set_enable(chip, true);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -92,11 +146,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  {
>  	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> -	u32 val;
>  
> -	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> -	val &= ~(PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN);
> -	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> +	pc->data->set_enable(chip, false);
>  
>  	clk_disable(pc->clk);
>  }
> @@ -108,12 +159,52 @@ static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = {
>  	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
>  };
>  
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> +	.regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
> +	.regs.period = PWM_LRC,
> +	.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> +	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,

Perhaps a slightly more idiomatic way to write this would be:

	static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
		.regs = {
			.duty = PWM_HRC,
			.period = PWM_LRC,
			.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
			.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
		},
		...
	};

And similar for the v2 and vop structures. And like I said in another
reply, since the defines are now only used in this structure it's a
little redundant to give them symbolic names, so the above could equally
well be:

	static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
		.regs = {
			.duty = 0x04,
			.period = 0x08,
			.cntr = 0x00,
			.ctrl = 0x0c,
		},
		...
	};

> +	.prescaler = PRESCALER,

Similarly for the prescaler value, it can now simply be 2 here.

> +	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> +	.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> +	.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> +	.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> +	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> +	.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,

And 1 here.

> +	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> +	.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> +	.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> +	.regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
> +	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
> +	.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,

And 1 here.

> +	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> +};

No need for the double indirection.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140807/d0da6e17/attachment-0001.sig>

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[caesar]

Thierry,

? 2014?08?07? 14:18, Thierry Reding ??:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 06:21:35PM +0800, Caesar Wang wrote:
>> This patch added to support the PWM controller found on
>> RK3288 SoC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
>> index eec2145..59c2513 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>    * PWM driver for Rockchip SoCs
>>    *
>>    * Copyright (C) 2014 Beniamino Galvani <b.galvani@gmail.com>
>> + * Copyright (C) 2014 ROCKCHIP, Inc.
>>    *
>>    * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>    * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
>> @@ -12,6 +13,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/io.h>
>>   #include <linux/module.h>
>>   #include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>   #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>   #include <linux/pwm.h>
>>   #include <linux/time.h>
>> @@ -25,17 +27,72 @@
>>   
>>   #define PRESCALER		2
>>   
>> +#define PWM_ENABLE		(1 << 0)
>> +#define PWM_CONTINUOUS		(1 << 1)
>> +#define PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE	(1 << 3)
>> +#define PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE	(0 << 4)
>> +#define PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT		(0 << 5)
>> +#define PWM_LP_DISABLE		(0 << 8)
>> +
>>   struct rockchip_pwm_chip {
>>   	struct pwm_chip chip;
>>   	struct clk *clk;
>> +	const struct rockchip_pwm_data *data;
>>   	void __iomem *base;
>>   };
>>   
>> +struct rockchip_pwm_regs {
>> +	unsigned long duty;
>> +	unsigned long period;
>> +	unsigned long cntr;
>> +	unsigned long ctrl;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct rockchip_pwm_data {
>> +	struct rockchip_pwm_regs regs;
>> +	unsigned int prescaler;
>> +
>> +	void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable);
>> +};
>> +
>>   static inline struct rockchip_pwm_chip *to_rockchip_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *c)
>>   {
>>   	return container_of(c, struct rockchip_pwm_chip, chip);
>>   }
>>   
>> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
>> +{
>> +	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>> +	u32 val = 0;
>> +	u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
>> +
>> +	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
>> +
>> +	if (enable)
>> +		val |= enable_conf;
>> +	else
>> +		val &= ~enable_conf;
>> +
>> +	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
>> +{
>> +	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>> +	u32 val = 0;
>> +	u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
>> +		PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
>> +
>> +	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
>> +
>> +	if (enable)
>> +		val |= enable_conf;
>> +	else
>> +		val &= ~enable_conf;
>> +
>> +	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>   			       int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>>   {
>> @@ -52,20 +109,20 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>   	 * default prescaler value for all practical clock rate values.
>>   	 */
>>   	div = clk_rate * period_ns;
>> -	do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
>> +	do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
>>   	period = div;
>>   
>>   	div = clk_rate * duty_ns;
>> -	do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
>> +	do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
>>   	duty = div;
>>   
>>   	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		return ret;
>>   
>> -	writel(period, pc->base + PWM_LRC);
>> -	writel(duty, pc->base + PWM_HRC);
>> -	writel(0, pc->base + PWM_CNTR);
>> +	writel(period, pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
>> +	writel(duty, pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
>> +	writel(0, pc->base + pc->data->regs.cntr);
>>   
>>   	clk_disable(pc->clk);
>>   
>> @@ -76,15 +133,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>>   {
>>   	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>>   	int ret;
>> -	u32 val;
>>   
>>   	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		return ret;
>>   
>> -	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
>> -	val |= PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
>> -	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
>> +	pc->data->set_enable(chip, true);
>>   
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>> @@ -92,11 +146,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>>   static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>>   {
>>   	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>> -	u32 val;
>>   
>> -	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
>> -	val &= ~(PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN);
>> -	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
>> +	pc->data->set_enable(chip, false);
>>   
>>   	clk_disable(pc->clk);
>>   }
>> @@ -108,12 +159,52 @@ static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = {
>>   	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
>>   };
>>   
>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>> +	.regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
>> +	.regs.period = PWM_LRC,
>> +	.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>> +	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> Perhaps a slightly more idiomatic way to write this would be:
>
> 	static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> 		.regs = {
> 			.duty = PWM_HRC,
> 			.period = PWM_LRC,
> 			.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> 			.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> 		},
> 		...
> 	};
>
> And similar for the v2 and vop structures. And like I said in another
> reply, since the defines are now only used in this structure it's a
> little redundant to give them symbolic names, so the above could equally
> well be:
>
> 	static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> 		.regs = {
> 			.duty = 0x04,
> 			.period = 0x08,
> 			.cntr = 0x00,
> 			.ctrl = 0x0c,
> 		},
> 		...
> 	};
>
>> +	.prescaler = PRESCALER,
> Similarly for the prescaler value, it can now simply be 2 here.
>
>> +	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>> +	.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>> +	.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>> +	.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
>> +	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
>> +	.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> And 1 here.
>
>> +	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>> +	.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
>> +	.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
>> +	.regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
>> +	.regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
>> +	.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> And 1 here.

As you say, I will rewrite the about if it's really need  do so it.
For example:

static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
     .regs = {
                 .duty = 0x04,
                 .period = 0x08,
                 .cntr = 0x00,
                 .ctrl = 0x0c,
     },
     .prescaler = 2,
     .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
};

static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
     .regs = {
                 .duty = 0x08,
                 .period = 0x04,
                 .cntr = 0x00,
                 .ctrl = 0x0c,
     },
     .prescaler = 1,
     .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};

static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
     .regs = {
                 .duty = 0x08,
                 .period = 0x04,
                 .cntr = 0x0c,
                 .ctrl = 0x00,
     },
     .prescaler = 1,
     .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};

Is that right?

>> +	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>> +};
> No need for the double indirection.

Sorry, I think is need if you mean a double indirection for ".set_enable".



Caesar
>
> Thierry

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[Thierry Reding]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:04:30PM +0800, caesar wrote:
[...]
> As you say, I will rewrite the about if it's really need  do so it.
> For example:
> 
> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>     .regs = {
>                 .duty = 0x04,
>                 .period = 0x08,
>                 .cntr = 0x00,
>                 .ctrl = 0x0c,
>     },
>     .prescaler = 2,
>     .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> };
> 
> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>     .regs = {
>                 .duty = 0x08,
>                 .period = 0x04,
>                 .cntr = 0x00,
>                 .ctrl = 0x0c,
>     },
>     .prescaler = 1,
>     .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> };
> 
> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>     .regs = {
>                 .duty = 0x08,
>                 .period = 0x04,
>                 .cntr = 0x0c,
>                 .ctrl = 0x00,
>     },
>     .prescaler = 1,
>     .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> };
> 
> Is that right?

Yes.

> >>+	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> >>+};
> >No need for the double indirection.
> 
> Sorry, I think is need if you mean a double indirection for ".set_enable".

The "double indirection" was regarding the symbolic names for registers,
not the .set_enable(). Sorry.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140807/d1950544/attachment.sig>

[PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC

[caesar]

Thierry,

? 2014?08?07? 21:14, Thierry Reding ??:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:04:30PM +0800, caesar wrote:
> [...]
>> As you say, I will rewrite the about if it's really need  do so it.
>> For example:
>>
>> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
>>      .regs = {
>>                  .duty = 0x04,
>>                  .period = 0x08,
>>                  .cntr = 0x00,
>>                  .ctrl = 0x0c,
>>      },
>>      .prescaler = 2,
>>      .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>>      .regs = {
>>                  .duty = 0x08,
>>                  .period = 0x04,
>>                  .cntr = 0x00,
>>                  .ctrl = 0x0c,
>>      },
>>      .prescaler = 1,
>>      .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>>      .regs = {
>>                  .duty = 0x08,
>>                  .period = 0x04,
>>                  .cntr = 0x0c,
>>                  .ctrl = 0x00,
>>      },
>>      .prescaler = 1,
>>      .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>> };
>>
>> Is that right?
> Yes.
>
>>>> +	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>>>> +};
>>> No need for the double indirection.
>> Sorry, I think is need if you mean a double indirection for ".set_enable".
> The "double indirection" was regarding the symbolic names for registers,
> not the .set_enable(). Sorry.
OK,I will fix the about in patch v5 tomorrow if no other problems,Thanks!
> Thierry