On 07/20/2013 02:04 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
This patch introduces new Samsung PWM driver, which uses Samsung
PWM/timer master driver to control shared parts of the hardware.
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa<tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c | 606 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 607 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c
[...]
+static const struct samsung_pwm_variant s3c64xx_variant = {
+ .bits = 32,
+ .div_base = 0,
Initialization to 0 could be omitted, since it is implicit.
+ .has_tint_cstat = true,
+ .tclk_mask = BIT(7) | BIT(6) | BIT(5),
+};
+
+static const struct samsung_pwm_variant s5p64x0_variant = {
+ .bits = 32,
+ .div_base = 0,
Ditto.
+ .has_tint_cstat = true,
+};
+
+static const struct samsung_pwm_variant s5p_variant = {
+ .bits = 32,
+ .div_base = 0,
Ditto.
+ .has_tint_cstat = true,
+ .tclk_mask = BIT(5),
+};
+
[...]
+static int pwm_samsung_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct samsung_pwm_chip *chip = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = pwmchip_remove(&chip->chip);
+ if (ret< 0)
+ return ret;
Since return value of the remove() callback is happily ignored by
the driver core I think there is no point in returning an error
here like this. Wouldn't it be more sensible to just call all the
cleanup functions unconditionally ? At least potentially wrong state
of the clock could be avoided.
+
+ clk_disable_unprepare(chip->base_clk);
+
+ return 0;
+}
--
Regards,
Sylwester
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
