Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:34:55 +0100 | From | Florian Vaussard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] pwm: Add pwm_cansleep() as exported API to users |
| |
Le 25/01/2013 13:32, Peter Ujfalusi a écrit : > On 01/25/2013 11:01 AM, Florian Vaussard wrote: >> Calls to some external PWM chips can sleep. To help users, >> add pwm_cansleep() API. >> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@epfl.ch> >> --- >> drivers/pwm/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> include/linux/pwm.h | 10 ++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c >> index 4a13da4..f49bfa6 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c >> @@ -763,6 +763,18 @@ void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm) >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_pwm_put); >> >> +/** >> + * pwm_can_sleep() - report whether pwm access will sleep >> + * @pwm: PWM device >> + * >> + * It returns nonzero if accessing the PWM can sleep. >> + */ >> +int pwm_can_sleep(struct pwm_device *pwm) >> +{ >> + return pwm->chip->can_sleep; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_can_sleep); > > Can we name this as pwm_cansleep() to be more alligned with the > gpio_cansleep() API? >
Sure
>> + >> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS >> static void pwm_dbg_show(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct seq_file *s) >> { >> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h >> index 70655a2..2aee75d 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h >> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h >> @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ struct pwm_ops { >> * @base: number of first PWM controlled by this chip >> * @npwm: number of PWMs controlled by this chip >> * @pwms: array of PWM devices allocated by the framework >> + * @can_sleep: flag must be set iff config()/enable()/disable() methods sleep, >> + * as they must while accessing PWM chips over I2C or SPI >> */ >> struct pwm_chip { >> struct device *dev; >> @@ -159,6 +161,7 @@ struct pwm_chip { >> struct pwm_device * (*of_xlate)(struct pwm_chip *pc, >> const struct of_phandle_args *args); >> unsigned int of_pwm_n_cells; >> + unsigned int can_sleep:1; >> }; >> >> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM) >> @@ -182,6 +185,8 @@ struct pwm_device *devm_pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id); >> struct pwm_device *devm_of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np, >> const char *con_id); >> void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm); >> + >> +int pwm_can_sleep(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> #else >> static inline int pwm_set_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm, void *data) >> { >> @@ -242,6 +247,11 @@ static inline struct pwm_device *devm_of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, >> static inline void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm) >> { >> } >> + >> +static inline int pwm_can_sleep(struct pwm_device *pwm) >> +{ >> + return -EINVAL; > > I think we should return 0 here instead an error. >
Ok, it makes sense.
>> +} >> #endif >> >> struct pwm_lookup { >> > >
Thank you,
Florian -- 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/
| |