On Saturday 03 March 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > * Thierry Reding wrote: > > * Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Thursday 23 February 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > Is this only used for the device tree functions? If so, I would recommend > > > > > making it less generic and always search for a device node. > > > > > > > > It is currently only used to look up a struct pwm_chip for a given struct > > > > device_node, yes. But I can see other uses for this. For instance this could > > > > be useful if we ever want to provide an alternative way of requesting a PWM > > > > on a per-chip basis. > > > > > > Nah, just keep it simple for now. If we need it later, we can still > > > add something like this back, but for now it's just a source of > > > confusion and possible bugs. > > > > Will do. > > I turns out that this is not as easy to do as I thought. The problem is that > if I remove the pwmchip_find() from the core and move the lookup > functionality into the OF support code I no longer have access to the list of > PWM chips. So I guess it will have to stay in to keep things encapsulated > properly. Well, or you move everything into the one file. If you have the device tree support function in the same file as everything else, you no longer need the additional complexity. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
