Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1269909 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2015-11-16 10:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where  appropriate Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2015-11-16 17:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers  where appropriate Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2015-11-16 18:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where  appropriate Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2015-11-16 18:10 +0100

#1269909 — [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate

Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
update.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
---
Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:

--->8---
virtual patch

@@
struct pwm_device *p;
expression e;
@@
(
-(p)->polarity = e;
+pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
|
-(p)->polarity
+pwm_get_polarity((p))
|
-(p)->period = e;
+pwm_set_period((p), e);
|
-(p)->period
+pwm_get_period((p))
|
-(p)->duty_cycle = e;
+pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
|
-(p)->duty_cycle
+pwm_get_duty_cycle((p))
)
--->8---
---
 drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c | 13 +++++++------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
index 3e23003..105b964 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
@@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ static int  __set_pwm(struct pwm_fan_ctx *ctx, unsigned long pwm)
 	if (ctx->pwm_value == pwm)
 		goto exit_set_pwm_err;
 
-	duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM);
-	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period);
+	duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1), MAX_PWM);
+	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)));
 	if (ret)
 		goto exit_set_pwm_err;
 
@@ -234,10 +234,10 @@ static int pwm_fan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ctx);
 
 	/* Set duty cycle to maximum allowed */
-	duty_cycle = ctx->pwm->period - 1;
+	duty_cycle = pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1;
 	ctx->pwm_value = MAX_PWM;
 
-	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty_cycle, ctx->pwm->period);
+	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty_cycle, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)));
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM\n");
 		return ret;
@@ -309,8 +309,9 @@ static int pwm_fan_resume(struct device *dev)
 	if (ctx->pwm_value == 0)
 		return 0;
 
-	duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(ctx->pwm_value * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM);
-	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period);
+	duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(ctx->pwm_value * (pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1),
+			    MAX_PWM);
+	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)));
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 	return pwm_enable(ctx->pwm);
-- 
2.1.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1270304 — Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate

On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
> Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
> update.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
> Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
>
> --->8---
> virtual patch
>
> @@
> struct pwm_device *p;
> expression e;
> @@
> (
> -(p)->polarity = e;
> +pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
> |
> -(p)->polarity
> +pwm_get_polarity((p))

s/((p))/(p)/

> |
> -(p)->period = e;
> +pwm_set_period((p), e);
> |
> -(p)->period
> +pwm_get_period((p))

s/((p))/(p)/

> |
> -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
> +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);

The (p) seems unnecessary here.

> |
> -(p)->duty_cycle
> +pwm_get_duty_cycle((p))

s/((p))/(p)/

> )
> --->8---
> ---
>   drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c | 13 +++++++------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
> index 3e23003..105b964 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
> @@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ static int  __set_pwm(struct pwm_fan_ctx *ctx, unsigned long pwm)
>   	if (ctx->pwm_value == pwm)
>   		goto exit_set_pwm_err;
>
> -	duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM);
> -	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period);
> +	duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1), MAX_PWM);
> +	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)));

Please drop all the unnecessary ( ).

Thanks,
Guenter

>   	if (ret)
>   		goto exit_set_pwm_err;
>
> @@ -234,10 +234,10 @@ static int pwm_fan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ctx);
>
>   	/* Set duty cycle to maximum allowed */
> -	duty_cycle = ctx->pwm->period - 1;
> +	duty_cycle = pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1;
>   	ctx->pwm_value = MAX_PWM;
>
> -	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty_cycle, ctx->pwm->period);
> +	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty_cycle, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)));
>   	if (ret) {
>   		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM\n");
>   		return ret;
> @@ -309,8 +309,9 @@ static int pwm_fan_resume(struct device *dev)
>   	if (ctx->pwm_value == 0)
>   		return 0;
>
> -	duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(ctx->pwm_value * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM);
> -	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period);
> +	duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(ctx->pwm_value * (pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)) - 1),
> +			    MAX_PWM);
> +	ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, pwm_get_period((ctx->pwm)));
>   	if (ret)
>   		return ret;
>   	return pwm_enable(ctx->pwm);
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1270372 — Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:

> On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
> > Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
> > update.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> > Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
> >
> > --->8---
> > virtual patch
> >
> > @@
> > struct pwm_device *p;
> > expression e;
> > @@
> > (
> > -(p)->polarity = e;
> > +pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
> > |
> > -(p)->polarity
> > +pwm_get_polarity((p))
> 
> s/((p))/(p)/
> 
> > |
> > -(p)->period = e;
> > +pwm_set_period((p), e);
> > |
> > -(p)->period
> > +pwm_get_period((p))
> 
> s/((p))/(p)/
> 
> > |
> > -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
> > +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
> 
> The (p) seems unnecessary here.

I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around
p, right?




-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1270386 — Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate

On 11/16/2015 08:53 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800
> Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
>>> Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
>>> update.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
>>> ---
>>> Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
>>>
>>> --->8---
>>> virtual patch
>>>
>>> @@
>>> struct pwm_device *p;
>>> expression e;
>>> @@
>>> (
>>> -(p)->polarity = e;
>>> +pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
>>> |
>>> -(p)->polarity
>>> +pwm_get_polarity((p))
>>
>> s/((p))/(p)/
>>
>>> |
>>> -(p)->period = e;
>>> +pwm_set_period((p), e);
>>> |
>>> -(p)->period
>>> +pwm_get_period((p))
>>
>> s/((p))/(p)/
>>
>>> |
>>> -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
>>> +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
>>
>> The (p) seems unnecessary here.
>
> I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around
> p, right?
>

Same as above - s/(p)/p/. It should never be necessary to write
	pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e)
since
	pwm_set_duty_cycle(p, e)
should be the same.

On the other side, I did not see this expression used in any of the patches,
though maybe I missed it.

Thanks,
Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web