On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:41:14PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:16:59 -0700
> Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Notably, you're dropping the 'if (!pwm) { }' safety checks that are part
> > of pwm_disable() and pwm_set_polarity(). But I don't think there should
> > be any users relying on that.
>
> Indeed. I can add it back here if you prefer,
Nah, that's ok. I just had to say it anyway :)
> but honestly, PWM users
> that are not checking the value returned by pwm_get() should be
> considered buggy IMHO, and a NULL pointer exception is a good way to
> make people realize they are not properly using the API :).
Seems OK.
Brian
