From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Brezillon Subject: [PATCH 10/14] regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:23:08 +0200 Message-ID: <1464942192-25967-11-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> References: <1464942192-25967-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1464942192-25967-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thierry Reding , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood Cc: Heiko Stuebner , linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Milo Kim , Doug Anderson , Caesar Wang , Stephen Barber , Brian Norris , Ajit Pal Singh , Srinivas Kandagatla , Maxime Coquelin , Patrice Chotard , kernel@stlinux.com, Boris Brezillon List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Use the atomic API wherever appropriate and get rid of pwm_apply_args() call (the reference period and polarity are now explicitly set when calling pwm_apply_state()). We also make use of the pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle() helper to ease relative to absolute duty_cycle conversion. Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon --- drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 38 ++++++++++---------------------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c index 524b43f..bf033fd 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c @@ -59,16 +59,14 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage_sel(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned selector) { struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); - struct pwm_args pargs; - int dutycycle; + struct pwm_state pstate; int ret; - pwm_get_args(drvdata->pwm, &pargs); + pwm_prepare_new_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate); + pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, + drvdata->duty_cycle_table[selector].dutycycle, 100); - dutycycle = (pargs.period * - drvdata->duty_cycle_table[selector].dutycycle) / 100; - - ret = pwm_config(drvdata->pwm, dutycycle, pargs.period); + ret = pwm_apply_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate); if (ret) { dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM: %d\n", ret); return ret; @@ -126,34 +124,18 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, { struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); unsigned int ramp_delay = rdev->constraints->ramp_delay; - struct pwm_args pargs; unsigned int req_diff = min_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV; + struct pwm_state pstate; unsigned int diff; - unsigned int duty_pulse; - u64 req_period; - u32 rem; int ret; - pwm_get_args(drvdata->pwm, &pargs); + pwm_prepare_new_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate); diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV; - /* First try to find out if we get the iduty cycle time which is - * factor of PWM period time. If (request_diff_to_min * pwm_period) - * is perfect divided by voltage_range_diff then it is possible to - * get duty cycle time which is factor of PWM period. This will help - * to get output voltage nearer to requested value as there is no - * calculation loss. - */ - req_period = req_diff * pargs.period; - div_u64_rem(req_period, diff, &rem); - if (!rem) { - do_div(req_period, diff); - duty_pulse = (unsigned int)req_period; - } else { - duty_pulse = (pargs.period / 100) * ((req_diff * 100) / diff); - } + /* We pass diff as the scale to get a uV precision. */ + pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, req_diff, diff); - ret = pwm_config(drvdata->pwm, duty_pulse, pargs.period); + ret = pwm_apply_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate); if (ret) { dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM: %d\n", ret); return ret; -- 2.7.4