[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzF20P0Af25ep/ul@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:54:24 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] pwm: lpss: Allow other drivers to enable PWM LPSS
On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 12:14:49PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:56:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The PWM LPSS device can be embedded in another device.
> > In order to enable it, allow that drivers to probe
> > a corresponding device.
>
> There is no in-tree user of this. Do you plan to add one?
Yes.
...
> > +#define MAX_PWMS 4
>
> Side-note orthogonal to this patch series: IMHO this is a bad name for a
> driver specific constant. Without a driver prefix you could easily
> misjudge this as e.g. maximal number of PWMs a machine can have. This
> should better be named LPSS_MAX_PWMS or similar.
Agree. But it was before my series. I can, of course, fix it at some point.
...
> > -struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo;
>
> So the declaration you added before and I doubted is gone again.
I agree that it looks not nice in the same series, so I will drop this change
till I have a user. Then it will be clear that intention of the previous patch
is to make sure we don't abuse C programming language.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists