On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 04:30:21PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: ... > The best solution that I could come up with is to not pass the index into the > of_pwm_request() function but rather forward the consumer name as passed into > pwm_get(). The of_pwm_request() could use the "pwm-names" property to do a > reverse lookup of the index and request that. One good thing about that would > be that I no longer need to export the of_pwm_request() function. I never understand why of_pwm_request() needs to be exported anyway. pwm_get() should be the only interface to pwm new/DT users, IMO. > The "bad" > thing is that it'll make the "pwm-names" property mandatory if more than a > single PWM is requested. > You do not have to make it mandatory, but anyone requesting any pwm other than the first on in "pwms" list should fail. > Does that sound reasonable? > The above is exactly what clock DT does, so it sounds reasonable to me. And I would expect the next version can just turn the second parameter of pwm_get() into the one that will be used to identify the pwm device rather than adding one more parameter. Then we have pwm API well aligned with clk and regulator. -- Regards, Shawn -- 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
