Dear Mike Dunn,
[...]
> >> +static struct of_device_id pwm_of_match[] = {
> >> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa250-pwm", .data = &pwm_id_table[0]},
> >
> > Surely, data can be NULL, no ?
>
> It could, in which case pxa_pwm_get_id_dt() would explicitly return
> &pwm_id_table[0] instead of the .data element of the of_device_id. Not
> sure which way is better and why. That dumb platform_device_id table is
> causing all kinds of nuisance :)
Is the pwm_id_table needed at all anymore?
> > [...]
> >
> >> @@ -145,6 +199,8 @@ static int pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>
> >> pwm->chip.ops = &pxa_pwm_ops;
> >> pwm->chip.base = -1;
> >> pwm->chip.npwm = (id->driver_data & HAS_SECONDARY_PWM) ? 2 : 1;
> >>
> >> + pwm->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> >> + pwm->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
> >
> > Are these two settings needed ?
>
> Yes. See drivers/pwm/core.c:of_pwmchip_add(), where they are set to
> default values of of_pwm_simple_xlate and 2 if left uninitialized.
OK
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
