On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 10:38 AM Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > at a quick glance this looks nice. I wonder if it makes sense to split > the patch. For example the change > > - ctx->pwm = devm_of_pwm_get(dev, dev->of_node, NULL); > + ctx->pwm = devm_pwm_get(dev, NULL); > > could stand alone. Also I think this change is the relevant part in > patch #1 that makes patches #2 and #3 possible. True. > When this patch doesn't get split, the series needs some coordination, > as patch #1 is for hwmon and patches #2 and #3 are for pwm. > > Splitting the series into: > > hwmon: (pwm-fan) Use of devm_pwm_get() instead of devm_of_pwm_get() > pwm: core: Get rid of unused devm_of_pwm_get() > pwm: core: Make of_pwm_get() static > > for pwm and the remainder of this patch for hwmon might make application > of the changes here easier to coordinate. Either way it will need the hwmon maintainer ACKs or alike. Since we have (plenty of) time I will wait a bit for hwmon maintainers to react. Guenter, what would you prefer? > But still: Thanks for your effort and > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for looking into the series related to PWM core clean up! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
