Hello Fabrice,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:31:37AM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> On 2/11/19 8:06 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:12:02PM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> >> @@ -943,6 +950,8 @@ struct pwm_device *devm_of_pwm_get(struct device *dev,
> >> struct device_node *np,
> >> if (!IS_ERR(pwm)) {
> >> *ptr = pwm;
> >> devres_add(dev, ptr);
> >> + device_link_add(dev, pwm->chip->dev,
> >> + DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER);
> >
> > IMHO it's surprising that devm_of_pwm_get() does more than of_pwm_get()
> > + devres stuff. I'd put device_link_add() into of_pwm_get().
>
> Hi Uwe,
>
> I also agree with this. But I think this implies modifying the API for
> of_pwm_get():
> /**
> * of_pwm_get() - request a PWM via the PWM framework
> + * @dev: device for PWM consumer
> * @np: device node to get the PWM from
> * @con_id: consumer name
>
> It seems there aren't much of_pwm_get() users currently.
> Does this look sensible ?
In my eyes this looks sensible, yes.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
