Hello Doug,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 09:47:42AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:11 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > struct pwm_chip::dev is about to change. To not have to touch this
> > driver in the same commit as struct pwm_chip::dev, use the macro
> > provided for exactly this purpose.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> This seems OK with me. Unless someone more senior in the drm-misc
> community contradicts me, feel free to take this through your tree.
>
> Acked-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
> NOTE: though the patch seems OK to me, I have one small concern. If I
> understand correctly, your eventual goal is to add a separate "dev"
> for the PWM chip without further changes to the ti-sn65dsi86 driver.
> If that's true, you'll have to find some way to magically call
> devm_pm_runtime_enable() on the new "dev" since the code you have here
> is calling pm_runtime functions on what will eventually be this new
> "dev". Maybe you'll do something like enabling runtime PM on it
> automatically if its parent had runtime PM enabled?
The idea is that the pwmchip_parent macro always returns the pwmchip's
parent. So when this patch gets applied, we have
+static inline struct device *pwmchip_parent(struct pwm_chip *chip)
{
return chip->dev;
}
and when the pwmchip gets its own struct device, it is adapted to return
chip->dev.parent (and not &chip->dev). See patches #3 and #109.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
