Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1506777 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-24 00:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-10-25 09:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 6 — 2 participants |
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.
[PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> - 2016-10-24 00:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-10-24 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-10-24 17:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> - 2016-10-24 23:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-10-25 08:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> - 2016-10-25 09:00 +0200
| From | Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 00:00 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver |
| Message-ID | <svyY9-6no-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by implementing
PWM atomic support (apply() callback).
To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag -
"polarity_supported" has been introduced.
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = {
};
struct imx_pwm_data {
+ bool polarity_supported;
struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops;
};
@@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = {
};
static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = {
+ .polarity_supported = true,
.pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2,
};
@@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
imx->chip.base = -1;
imx->chip.npwm = 1;
imx->chip.can_sleep = true;
- if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) {
+ if (data->polarity_supported) {
dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output inversion\n");
imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
--
2.1.4
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 17:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver |
| Message-ID | <svPmj-ZI-51@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1506777 |
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
> The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by implementing
> PWM atomic support (apply() callback).
>
> To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag -
> "polarity_supported" has been introduced.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> };
>
> struct imx_pwm_data {
> + bool polarity_supported;
> struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops;
> };
>
> @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = {
> };
>
> static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = {
> + .polarity_supported = true,
> .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2,
> };
>
> @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> imx->chip.base = -1;
> imx->chip.npwm = 1;
> imx->chip.can_sleep = true;
> - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) {
> + if (data->polarity_supported) {
You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining
#pwm-cells = 2.
Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate should
be used.
> dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output inversion\n");
> imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 17:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver |
| Message-ID | <svPvY-14z-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1507310 |
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200
> Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
>
> > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by implementing
> > PWM atomic support (apply() callback).
> >
> > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag -
> > "polarity_supported" has been introduced.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl>
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> > };
> >
> > struct imx_pwm_data {
> > + bool polarity_supported;
> > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops;
> > };
> >
> > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = {
> > };
> >
> > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = {
> > + .polarity_supported = true,
> > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2,
> > };
> >
> > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > imx->chip.base = -1;
> > imx->chip.npwm = 1;
> > imx->chip.can_sleep = true;
> > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) {
> > + if (data->polarity_supported) {
>
> You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining
> #pwm-cells = 2.
>
> Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate should
> be used.
Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2].
But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be part of
patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity implementation. Otherwise,
this means you don't support polarity setting between patch 5 and 6.
>
> > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output inversion\n");
> > imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> > imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
>
[1]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679706/
[2]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679707/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 23:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver |
| Message-ID | <svUYG-4HF-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1507323 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi Boris,
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200
> > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by
> > > implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback).
> > >
> > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag -
> > > "polarity_supported" has been introduced.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct imx_pwm_data {
> > > + bool polarity_supported;
> > > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops;
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = {
> > > };
> > >
> > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = {
> > > + .polarity_supported = true,
> > > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2,
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct
> > > platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1;
> > > imx->chip.npwm = 1;
> > > imx->chip.can_sleep = true;
> > > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) {
> > > + if (data->polarity_supported) {
> >
> > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining
> > #pwm-cells = 2.
> >
> > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate
> > should be used.
>
> Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2].
Yes, some patches are required to make this code work. Especially, I
wanted to explicitly reuse and credit work already done by
Bhuvanchandra.
> But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be part
> of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity implementation.
> Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity setting between
> patch 5 and 6.
Frankly speaking, I did it on purpose, to have operations in commits
logically separated.
I personally, do detest commits which blur the picture and are not
corresponding to one single logical change - for example remove some
large chunk of code and also add some tiny, new flag.
For me it is not a problem to have polarity disabled between patches 5
and 6, since at the end of the day we have it enabled.
Thanks for your support and review,
Best regards,
Łukasz Majewski
>
> >
> > > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output
> > > inversion\n"); imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> > > imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
> >
>
> [1]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679706/
> [2]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679707/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 08:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver |
| Message-ID | <sw3yV-1WB-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1507751 |
Hi Lukasz,
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:14:58 +0200
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200
> > > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by
> > > > implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback).
> > > >
> > > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag -
> > > > "polarity_supported" has been introduced.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > struct imx_pwm_data {
> > > > + bool polarity_supported;
> > > > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = {
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = {
> > > > + .polarity_supported = true,
> > > > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2,
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct
> > > > platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1;
> > > > imx->chip.npwm = 1;
> > > > imx->chip.can_sleep = true;
> > > > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) {
> > > > + if (data->polarity_supported) {
> > >
> > > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining
> > > #pwm-cells = 2.
> > >
> > > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate
> > > should be used.
> >
> > Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2].
>
> Yes, some patches are required to make this code work. Especially, I
> wanted to explicitly reuse and credit work already done by
> Bhuvanchandra.
>
> > But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be part
> > of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity implementation.
> > Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity setting between
> > patch 5 and 6.
>
> Frankly speaking, I did it on purpose, to have operations in commits
> logically separated.
>
> I personally, do detest commits which blur the picture and are not
> corresponding to one single logical change - for example remove some
> large chunk of code and also add some tiny, new flag.
>
> For me it is not a problem to have polarity disabled between patches 5
> and 6, since at the end of the day we have it enabled.
It's really simple to make this series bisectable, all you have to do
is move patch 6 before patch 5. This being said, I really think you
should follow Stefan's recommendation: base your changes on mainline
and switch to the atomic hook before supporting polarity setting.
Regards,
Boris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 09:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to PWMv2 driver |
| Message-ID | <sw3Si-239-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1508004 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi Boris,
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:14:58 +0200
> Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200
> > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200
> > > > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by
> > > > > implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback).
> > > > >
> > > > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new
> > > > > flag - "polarity_supported" has been introduced.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > struct imx_pwm_data {
> > > > > + bool polarity_supported;
> > > > > struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data
> > > > > imx_pwm_data_v1 = { };
> > > > >
> > > > > static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = {
> > > > > + .polarity_supported = true,
> > > > > .pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2,
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct
> > > > > platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1;
> > > > > imx->chip.npwm = 1;
> > > > > imx->chip.can_sleep = true;
> > > > > - if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) {
> > > > > + if (data->polarity_supported) {
> > > >
> > > > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining
> > > > #pwm-cells = 2.
> > > >
> > > > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate
> > > > should be used.
> > >
> > > Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2].
> >
> > Yes, some patches are required to make this code work. Especially, I
> > wanted to explicitly reuse and credit work already done by
> > Bhuvanchandra.
> >
> > > But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be
> > > part of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity
> > > implementation. Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity
> > > setting between patch 5 and 6.
> >
> > Frankly speaking, I did it on purpose, to have operations in commits
> > logically separated.
> >
> > I personally, do detest commits which blur the picture and are not
> > corresponding to one single logical change - for example remove some
> > large chunk of code and also add some tiny, new flag.
> >
> > For me it is not a problem to have polarity disabled between
> > patches 5 and 6, since at the end of the day we have it enabled.
>
> It's really simple to make this series bisectable, all you have to do
> is move patch 6 before patch 5.
Hmm... You are right, I do wonder why I didn't get this idea from the
very beginning.
> This being said, I really think you
> should follow Stefan's recommendation: base your changes on mainline
> and switch to the atomic hook before supporting polarity setting.
I will do my best :-)
Best regards,
Łukasz Majewski
>
> Regards,
>
> Boris
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web