AcoSail/kernel_optimize_test
8
0
Fork 0
forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
Code Pull Requests Activity

regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API

Browse Source 
Use the atomic API wherever appropriate and get rid of pwm_apply_args()
call (the reference period and polarity are now explicitly set when
calling pwm_apply_state()).

We also make use of the pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle() helper to ease
relative to absolute duty_cycle conversion.

Note that changes introduced by commit fd786fb027 ("regulator: pwm:
Try to avoid voltage error in duty cycle calculation") are no longer
needed because pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle() takes care of all rounding
approximation for us.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Boris Brezillon 2016-06-14 11:13:18 +02:00 committed by Thierry Reding
parent fd4f99c4c3
commit 3f4eb39be9
1 changed files with 10 additions and 28 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

38
drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
View File

@ -63,16 +63,14 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage_sel(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
unsigned selector)
{
struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
struct pwm_args pargs;
int dutycycle;
struct pwm_state pstate;
int ret;
pwm_get_args(drvdata->pwm, &pargs);
pwm_init_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate,
drvdata->duty_cycle_table[selector].dutycycle, 100);
dutycycle = (pargs.period *
drvdata->duty_cycle_table[selector].dutycycle) / 100;
ret = pwm_config(drvdata->pwm, dutycycle, pargs.period);
ret = pwm_apply_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
if (ret) {
dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM: %d\n", ret);
return ret;
@ -139,35 +137,19 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
{
struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
unsigned int ramp_delay = rdev->constraints->ramp_delay;
struct pwm_args pargs;
unsigned int req_diff = min_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
struct pwm_state pstate;
unsigned int diff;
unsigned int duty_pulse;
u64 req_period;
u32 rem;
int old_uV = pwm_regulator_get_voltage(rdev);
int ret;
pwm_get_args(drvdata->pwm, &pargs);
pwm_init_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
/* First try to find out if we get the iduty cycle time which is
* factor of PWM period time. If (request_diff_to_min * pwm_period)
* is perfect divided by voltage_range_diff then it is possible to
* get duty cycle time which is factor of PWM period. This will help
* to get output voltage nearer to requested value as there is no
* calculation loss.
*/
req_period = req_diff * pargs.period;
div_u64_rem(req_period, diff, &rem);
if (!rem) {
do_div(req_period, diff);
duty_pulse = (unsigned int)req_period;
} else {
duty_pulse = (pargs.period / 100) * ((req_diff * 100) / diff);
}
/* We pass diff as the scale to get a uV precision. */
pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, req_diff, diff);
ret = pwm_config(drvdata->pwm, duty_pulse, pargs.period);
ret = pwm_apply_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
if (ret) {
dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Failed to configure PWM: %d\n", ret);
return ret;