> > +static int pci_drv, plat_drv; /* So we know which drivers registered
> > */
>
> I think that rather than having everything in a single file, perhaps a
> better approach would be to keep pwm-lpss.c as a common module and then
> have separate drivers for ACPI (pwm-lpss-acpi) and PCI (pwm-lpss-pci).
> That way you don't have to keep track of which driver was successfully
> registered.
It would then take up 16K for a tiny trivial piece of code
> Would that work?
Badly
> > +static const struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo byt_info = {
>
> What does byt_ stand for?
Baytrail.
> > -static int pwm_lpss_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +static struct pwm_lpss_chip *pwm_lpss_probe(struct device *dev,
> > + struct resource *r, struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo *info)
>
> Indentation is odd here. Please align arguments one subsequent lines
> with those of the first.
That doesn't appear to be present in CodingStyle or indeed most of the
kernel.
> > -static struct platform_driver pwm_lpss_driver = {
> > +static int pwm_lpss_probe_pci(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> > + const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > +{
> > + struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo *info;
>
> I think this should be const to mirror the type of the byt_info
> variable.
Agreed
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
