On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 20:37:55, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:21:12PM +0530, Philip, Avinash wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > index 112b314..70756f2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > @@ -78,6 +78,10 @@ enum {
> > PWMF_ENABLED = 1 << 1,
> > };
> >
> > +/* flags in the third cell of the DT PWM specifier */
> > +#define PWM_SPEC_POLARITY (1 << 0)
> > +
> > +
>
> This doesn't belong in this header. It should go into core.c in
> drivers/pwm.
I will move.
>
> > struct pwm_device {
> > const char *label;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > @@ -176,6 +180,8 @@ void pwm_put(struct pwm_device *pwm);
> >
> > struct pwm_device *devm_pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *consumer);
> > void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm);
> > +struct pwm_device *of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc,
> > + const struct of_phandle_args *args);
>
> The placement of this prototype is odd. I think a better place would be
> between pwm_request_from_chip() and pwm_get(), separated by blank lines
> to make it stand out as an OF specific function.
Ok I will move to between pwm_request_from_chip() and pwm_get().
>
> > #else
> > static inline int pwm_set_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm, void *data)
> > {
> > @@ -223,6 +229,12 @@ static inline struct pwm_device *devm_pwm_get(struct device *dev,
> > static inline void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > {
> > }
> > +
> > +static inline struct pwm_device *of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc,
> > + const struct of_phandle_args *args)
> > +{
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > +}
>
> This function should only be used by PWM drivers and therefore doesn't
> need to have a dummy implementation such as this.
Ok I will remove.
Thanks
Avinash
>
> Thierry
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
