From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dianders@chromium.org (Doug Anderson)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 20:26:51 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC
In-Reply-To: <53E2F11A.1040109@rock-chips.com>
References: <1406197295-10604-1-git-send-email-caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
 <1406197295-10604-3-git-send-email-caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
 <CAD=FV=V4Kp-H3CcAKZPV1jBnYX+Ntwvxx6RB13TLxS5RRPHTWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53E2D605.2000704@rock-chips.com>
 <CAD=FV=Xw8tz2keCUtO+qYUmnuv=+DPGZjY9-j_2XmAcP3Luzjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <53E2F11A.1040109@rock-chips.com>
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Wuj2_q+iW2EAj7w8TvgS=C2juSu+h_iG24NvPk4UqhKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

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.