* Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 05:06:28PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > This patch adds helpers to support device tree bindings for the generic
> > PWM API. Device tree binding documentation for PWM controllers is also
> > provided.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v6:
> > - don't override error code in of_pwm_simple_xlate()
> > - no longer export of_pwm_request(), only pwm_get() should be used
>
> Ok, I read this here ...
>
> > +/**
> > + * of_pwm_request() - request a PWM via the PWM framework
> > + * @np: device node to get the PWM from
> > + * @con_id: consumer name
> > + *
> > + * Returns the PWM device parsed from the phandle and index specified in the
> > + * "pwms" property of a device tree node or a negative error-code on failure.
> > + * Values parsed from the device tree are stored in the returned PWM device
> > + * object.
> > + *
> > + * If con_id is NULL, the first PWM device listed in the "pwms" property will
> > + * be requested. Otherwise the "pwm-names" property is used to do a reverse
> > + * lookup of the PWM index. This also means that the "pwm-names" property
> > + * becomes mandatory for devices that look up the PWM device via the con_id
> > + * parameter.
> > + */
> > +static struct pwm_device *of_pwm_request(struct device_node *np,
> > + const char *con_id)
> > +{
> ...
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_pwm_request);
>
> ... so this line should be removed. Otherwise,
You are absolutely right. I always thought that gcc would complain if you
tried to export a static function. Funny also that my compile tests haven't
caught this in the !OF configuration. Anyway, since of_pwm_request() is no
longer exported, I've replaced this by an IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) construct
similar to the calls to of_pwmchip_add() and of_pwmchip_remove().
> Reviewed-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Thierry
Attachment:
pgp6UpPJ0DQ1Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
