Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752050AbdHDCio (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2017 22:38:44 -0400 Received: from lucky1.263xmail.com ([211.157.147.134]:45485 "EHLO lucky1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751968AbdHDCim (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2017 22:38:42 -0400 X-263anti-spam: KSV:0; X-MAIL-GRAY: 1 X-MAIL-DELIVERY: 0 X-KSVirus-check: 0 X-ABS-CHECKED: 4 X-RL-SENDER: david.wu@rock-chips.com X-FST-TO: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-SENDER-IP: 58.22.7.114 X-LOGIN-NAME: david.wu@rock-chips.com X-UNIQUE-TAG: X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0 X-DNS-TYPE: 0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] pwm: rockchip: Remove the dumplicate rockchip_pwm_ops ops To: Boris Brezillon Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, heiko@sntech.de, robh+dt@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, briannorris@chromium.org, dianders@chromium.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, huangtao@rock-chips.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1499486629-9659-1-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com> <1499486629-9659-4-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com> <20170802105902.2d137072@bbrezillon> <20170802134011.1124f1dd@bbrezillon> From: "David.Wu" Message-ID: <6d1f60ee-2402-5ee0-54f6-9521c039c36c@rock-chips.com> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 10:38:26 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170802134011.1124f1dd@bbrezillon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1447 Lines: 42 Hi Boris， 在 2017/8/2 19:40, Boris Brezillon 写道: > Yep, just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), each of them > implementing ->apply() and ->get_state() and that's all. > > Something like: > > static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = { > .get_state = rockchip_pwm_v1_get_state, > .apply = rockchip_pwm_v1_apply, > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > }; > > static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 = { > .get_state = rockchip_pwm_v2_get_state, > .apply = rockchip_pwm_v2_apply, > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > }; > > static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_vop = { > .get_state = rockchip_pwm_vop_get_state, > .apply = rockchip_pwm_vop_apply, > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > }; > > static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = { > { .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 }, > { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 }, > { .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &rockchip_pwm_ops_vop }, > { /* sentinel */ } > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids); I think we should keep the data members in the rockchip_pwm_data，like supports_polarity and regs... The supports_polarity is needed for of_pwm_n_cells when pwm registered. And the other data members is helpful for us to use common code. It's okay for just define 3 different pwm_ops (one for each IP), but they are with other data members in the struct of rockchip_pwm_data.