[linux-yocto] [PATCH] drivers/mfd/pca9685-pwm.c: Update to reflect changes in patches from upstream

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 2016-07-21 10:58 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 2016-07-21 3:21 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
>> There are some patches brought into to 4.4 from upstream that change
>> the pwm structure and move period and duty_cycle into a state structure
>> so fix these up. Additional address the removal of PWMF_ENABLED in favor
>> checking the state via pwm_is_enabled().
>>
>
> What branch is the target for this ? I could hunt around and
> figure it out, but I wanted to check with you as well.
>
> I had a quick look and the pca9685-pwm.c is quite a bit different
> in the latest kernel (i.e. it is under drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c)
> .. so I assume that given your description, there isn't an upstream
> fix for this and the file / routines in question are unique to
> the BSP support in linux-yocto ?
>
> If so, I guess I won't ask if this is already fixed upstream.
>
> We could split the patch into the pwm struct fix, and the state
> change .. but I won't insist, since it already looks this is
> being stacked onto other pending patches for usptream.

ping.

Is this one still required ? And if so, which branch ? bxt-rebase ?
standard/intel/base ?

Bruce

>
> Bruce
>
>> Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <sgw at linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mfd/pca9685-pwm.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/pca9685-pwm.c b/drivers/mfd/pca9685-pwm.c
>> index 0c05263..3a79c33 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/pca9685-pwm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/pca9685-pwm.c
>> @@ -80,16 +80,16 @@ int pca9685_update_prescale(struct pca9685 *pca,
>> unsigned period_ns,
>>      if (reconfigure_channels) {
>>          for (i = 0; i < pca->pwm_chip.npwm; i++) {
>>              pwm = &pca->pwm_chip.pwms[i];
>> -            pwm->period = period_ns;
>> -            if (pwm->duty_cycle > 0) {
>> +            pwm->state.period = period_ns;
>> +            if (pwm->state.duty_cycle > 0) {
>>                  /* Scale the rise time to maintain duty cycle */
>>                  duty_scale = period_ns;
>>                  duty_scale *= 1000000;
>>                  do_div(duty_scale, pca->pwm_period);
>> -                new_duty_ns = duty_scale * pwm->duty_cycle;
>> +                new_duty_ns = duty_scale * pwm->state.duty_cycle;
>>                  do_div(new_duty_ns, 1000000);
>>                  /* Update the duty_cycle */
>> -                pwm_config(pwm, (int)new_duty_ns, pwm->period);
>> +                pwm_config(pwm, (int)new_duty_ns, pwm->state.period);
>>              }
>>          }
>>      }
>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip
>> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>      /* Changing PWM period for a single channel at run-time not allowed.
>>       * The PCA9685 PWM clock is shared across all PWM channels
>>       */
>> -    if (unlikely(period_ns != pwm->period))
>> +    if (unlikely(period_ns != pwm->state.period))
>>          return -EPERM;
>>
>>      if (unlikely(pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)) {
>> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip
>> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>      else /* clear the LED_FULL bit */
>>          regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg_on_h, 0x00);
>>
>> -    full_off = !test_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, &pwm->flags) << 4;
>> +    full_off = !pwm_is_enabled(pwm);
>>
>>      regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg_off_l, (int)duty & 0xff);
>>
>> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip
>> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>>          (gpiochip_is_requested(gpio_chip, channel)))
>>              return -EBUSY;
>>
>> -    pwm->period = pca->pwm_period;
>> +    pwm->state.period = pca->pwm_period;
>>
>>      return 0;
>>  }
>>
>