The PWM device is specifically created for purposes of the PWM
framework. There should thus be no naming clashes and -ENOMEM
is not a fatal error there either, because the PWM C API is
still usable without the device parameters.
Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pwm/core.c | 25 +++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 69724e1a5c26..4dd18d9446aa 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -94,7 +94,6 @@ static int set_enable(struct param_d *p, void *priv)
int pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip)
{
struct pwm_device *pwm;
- struct param_d *p;
int ret;
if (!chip->devname)
@@ -117,24 +116,18 @@ int pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip)
list_add_tail(&pwm->node, &pwm_list);
- p = dev_add_param_uint32(&pwm->dev, "duty_ns", apply_params,
- NULL, &pwm->params.duty_cycle, "%u", pwm);
- if (IS_ERR(p))
- return PTR_ERR(p);
+ dev_add_param_uint32(&pwm->dev, "duty_ns", apply_params,
+ NULL, &pwm->params.duty_cycle, "%u", pwm);
- p = dev_add_param_uint32(&pwm->dev, "period_ns", apply_params,
- NULL, &pwm->params.period, "%u", pwm);
- if (IS_ERR(p))
- return PTR_ERR(p);
+ dev_add_param_uint32(&pwm->dev, "period_ns", apply_params,
+ NULL, &pwm->params.period, "%u", pwm);
- p = dev_add_param_bool(&pwm->dev, "enable", set_enable,
- NULL, &pwm->params.enabled, pwm);
- if (IS_ERR(p))
- return PTR_ERR(p);
+ dev_add_param_bool(&pwm->dev, "enable", set_enable,
+ NULL, &pwm->params.enabled, pwm);
- p = dev_add_param_bool(&pwm->dev, "inverted", apply_params,
- NULL, &pwm->params.polarity, pwm);
- return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(p);
+ dev_add_param_bool(&pwm->dev, "inverted", apply_params,
+ NULL, &pwm->params.polarity, pwm);
+ return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwmchip_add);
--
2.39.2
