From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] pwm: Allow chips to support multiple PWMs. Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 15:38:11 +0000 Message-ID: <201203061538.11709.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1329923841-32017-1-git-send-email-thierry.reding@avionic-design.de> <20120223160420.GA9899@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <20120303193249.GA22021@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120303193249.GA22021-RM9K5IK7kjIQXX3q8xo1gnVAuStQJXxyR5q1nwbD4aMs9pC9oP6+/A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Thierry Reding Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Sascha Hauer , Matthias Kaehlcke , Kurt Van Dijck , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Colin Cross , Olof Johansson , Richard Purdie , Mark Brown , Mitch Bradley , Mike Frysinger , Eric Miao , Lars-Peter Clausen , Ryan Mallon List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 03 March 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > * Thierry Reding wrote: > > * Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Thursday 23 February 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > Is this only used for the device tree functions? If so, I would recommend > > > > > making it less generic and always search for a device node. > > > > > > > > It is currently only used to look up a struct pwm_chip for a given struct > > > > device_node, yes. But I can see other uses for this. For instance this could > > > > be useful if we ever want to provide an alternative way of requesting a PWM > > > > on a per-chip basis. > > > > > > Nah, just keep it simple for now. If we need it later, we can still > > > add something like this back, but for now it's just a source of > > > confusion and possible bugs. > > > > Will do. > > I turns out that this is not as easy to do as I thought. The problem is that > if I remove the pwmchip_find() from the core and move the lookup > functionality into the OF support code I no longer have access to the list of > PWM chips. So I guess it will have to stay in to keep things encapsulated > properly. Well, or you move everything into the one file. If you have the device tree support function in the same file as everything else, you no longer need the additional complexity. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 15:38:11 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v3 02/10] pwm: Allow chips to support multiple PWMs. In-Reply-To: <20120303193249.GA22021@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> References: <1329923841-32017-1-git-send-email-thierry.reding@avionic-design.de> <20120223160420.GA9899@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <20120303193249.GA22021@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Message-ID: <201203061538.11709.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Saturday 03 March 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > * Thierry Reding wrote: > > * Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Thursday 23 February 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > Is this only used for the device tree functions? If so, I would recommend > > > > > making it less generic and always search for a device node. > > > > > > > > It is currently only used to look up a struct pwm_chip for a given struct > > > > device_node, yes. But I can see other uses for this. For instance this could > > > > be useful if we ever want to provide an alternative way of requesting a PWM > > > > on a per-chip basis. > > > > > > Nah, just keep it simple for now. If we need it later, we can still > > > add something like this back, but for now it's just a source of > > > confusion and possible bugs. > > > > Will do. > > I turns out that this is not as easy to do as I thought. The problem is that > if I remove the pwmchip_find() from the core and move the lookup > functionality into the OF support code I no longer have access to the list of > PWM chips. So I guess it will have to stay in to keep things encapsulated > properly. Well, or you move everything into the one file. If you have the device tree support function in the same file as everything else, you no longer need the additional complexity. Arnd