On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 04:33:47PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > + pwm-list ::= <single-pwm> [pwm-list] > + single-pwm ::= <pwm-phandle> <pwm-specifier> > + pwm-phandle : phandle to PWM controller node > + pwm-specifier : array of #pwm-cells specifying the given PWM > + (controller specific) > +PWM properties should be named "pwms". The exact meaning of each pwms > +property must be documented in the device tree binding for each device. > +An optional property "pwm-names" may contain a list of strings to label > +each of the PWM devices listed in the "pwms" property. If no "pwm-names" > +property is given, the name of the user node will be used as fallback. > + pwm = pwm_request_from_chip(pc, args->args[0], NULL); > + if (IS_ERR(pwm)) > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); It feels wrong to override the error code like this rather than passing the error we got back to the caller. Is there any great reason for doing so?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
