On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 08:50:00AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 05:26:20PM +0100, mathieu.dubois-briand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: ... > > > + chip = devm_pwmchip_alloc(dev->parent, MAX7360_NUM_PWMS, 0); > > > > This is quite worrying. The devm_ to parent makes a lot of assumptions that may > > not be realised. If you really need this, it has to have a very good comment > > explaining why and object lifetimes. > > Pretty sure this is broken. This results for example in the device link > being created on the parent. So if the pwm devices goes away a consumer > might not notice (at least in the usual way). I guess this was done to > ensure that #pwm-cells is parsed from the right dt node? If so, that > needs a different adaption. That will probably involve calling > device_set_of_node_from_dev(). It's an MFD based driver, and MFD core cares about propagating fwnode by default. I believe it should just work if we drop that '->parent' part. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
