On 26/10/15 10:28, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:56:24AM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
+ .val_bits = 32,
+ .reg_stride = 4,
+};
+
+static int mtk_efuse_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+ struct resource *res;
+ struct nvmem_device *nvmem;
+ struct nvmem_config *econfig;
+ struct regmap *regmap;
+ void __iomem *base;
+
+ res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
+ base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
+ if (IS_ERR(base))
+ return PTR_ERR(base);
+
+ econfig = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*econfig), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!econfig)
+ return -ENOMEM;
Why not use static econfig variable?
Because drivers should not assume there is only one instance of them in
the system. The qfprom driver does this and it's only a matter of
Good point, Yes, you are right. If MTK has possibility of having more
than one efuse we can leave the code as it is.
putting a second qcom,qfprom node into the device tree to break the
driver.
It would indeed.
--srini
Sascha
--
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
