From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752161AbbJJPOY (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:14:24 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:46740 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751604AbbJJPOX (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:14:23 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:14:20 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Thierry Reding , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org Cc: Yoshihiro Shimoda , Doug Anderson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Uwe =?UTF-8?B?S2xlaW5lLUvDtm5pZw==?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 pre-03/12] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled() Message-ID: <20151010171420.6c41f2b5@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <1444489838-13953-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> References: <1444489838-13953-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.27; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:10:38 +0200 Boris Brezillon wrote: > Commit 5c31252c4a86 ("pwm: Add the pwm_is_enabled() helper") introduced a > new function to test whether a PWM device is enabled or not without > manipulating PWM internal fields. > Hiding this is necessary if we want to smoothly move to the atomic PWM > config approach without impacting PWM drivers. > Fix this driver to use pwm_is_enabled() instead of directly accessing the > ->flags field. > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon > --- > Hi Thierry, Please ignore this patch: it was meant to be sent in reply to the pwm-atomic series. > > I noticed you applied a few patches adding new PWM drivers in your > pwm-next tree, and one of them is directly testing the PWMF_ENABLED > flag which is removed by patch 3 of this series, which means you have to > apply this patch before patch 3. > > I can resend the whole series if you want, but, unless you have a strong > reason to refuse it, I'd really like to get those changes in, so that I > don't have to rebase and fix the series each time a new driver is added. > > Best Regards, > > Boris > > drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c > index 6e99a63..70899c9 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c > @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int rcar_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > return div; > > /* Let the core driver set pwm->period if disabled and duty_ns == 0 */ > - if (!test_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, &pwm->flags) && !duty_ns) > + if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && !duty_ns) > return 0; > > rcar_pwm_update(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR); -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com