On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 12:18:20AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 6:48 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > - /* > > > - * There may already be some PWM allocated, so we can't force > > > - * mvpwm->chip.base to a fixed point like mvchip->chip.base. > > > - * So, we let pwmchip_add() do the numbering and take the next free > > > - * region. > > > - */ > > > - mvpwm->chip.base = -1; > > I don't see why this is removed. I understand why the comment is removed > but all contemporary GPIO chips should use dynamic assignment of numbers > i.e. base = -1. This is an assignment to struct pwm_chip::base, not struct gpio_chip::base. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
