linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] pwm: Device tree support for PWM polarity.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:38:56 +0000
From:	"Philip, Avinash" <avinashphilip@...com>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
CC:	"grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"rob@...dley.net" <rob@...dley.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"Nori, Sekhar" <nsekhar@...com>,
	"Hebbar, Gururaja" <gururaja.hebbar@...com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] pwm: Device tree support for PWM polarity.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 20:37:55, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:21:12PM +0530, Philip, Avinash wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > index 112b314..70756f2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > @@ -78,6 +78,10 @@ enum {
> >  	PWMF_ENABLED = 1 << 1,
> >  };
> >  
> > +/* flags in the third cell of the DT PWM specifier */
> > +#define PWM_SPEC_POLARITY	(1 << 0)
> > +
> > +
> 
> This doesn't belong in this header. It should go into core.c in
> drivers/pwm.

I will move.

> 
> >  struct pwm_device {
> >  	const char		*label;
> >  	unsigned long		flags;
> > @@ -176,6 +180,8 @@ void pwm_put(struct pwm_device *pwm);
> >  
> >  struct pwm_device *devm_pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *consumer);
> >  void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm);
> > +struct pwm_device *of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc,
> > +		const struct of_phandle_args *args);
> 
> The placement of this prototype is odd. I think a better place would be
> between pwm_request_from_chip() and pwm_get(), separated by blank lines
> to make it stand out as an OF specific function.

Ok I will move to between pwm_request_from_chip() and pwm_get().

> 
> >  #else
> >  static inline int pwm_set_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm, void *data)
> >  {
> > @@ -223,6 +229,12 @@ static inline struct pwm_device *devm_pwm_get(struct device *dev,
> >  static inline void devm_pwm_put(struct device *dev, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> >  {
> >  }
> > +
> > +static inline struct pwm_device *of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc,
> > +		const struct of_phandle_args *args)
> > +{
> > +	return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > +}
> 
> This function should only be used by PWM drivers and therefore doesn't
> need to have a dummy implementation such as this.

Ok I will remove.

Thanks
Avinash

> 
> Thierry
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/