On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 01:46:48PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> 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.
I've applied this to my fixes branch, and I'll let it cook in linux-next
for a little while, then send it off to Linus for v4.7-rc6 next week if
no further fallout is caused by this.
Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
