On 2/12/19 10:03 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.
Hello Uwe,
I just sent a v3 with that change,
Thanks
Fabrice
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
