Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752396AbdHBI7G (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Aug 2017 04:59:06 -0400 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:39462 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751983AbdHBI7E (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Aug 2017 04:59:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 10:59:02 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: David Wu Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, heiko@sntech.de, robh+dt@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, briannorris@chromium.org, dianders@chromium.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, huangtao@rock-chips.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] pwm: rockchip: Remove the dumplicate rockchip_pwm_ops ops Message-ID: <20170802105902.2d137072@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <1499486629-9659-4-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com> References: <1499486629-9659-1-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com> <1499486629-9659-4-git-send-email-david.wu@rock-chips.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2301 Lines: 64 On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 12:03:45 +0800 David Wu wrote: > The rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 and rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 ops are the same > struct members, remove one of them. > > Signed-off-by: David Wu > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 14 ++++---------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c > index cd45f17..85f9515 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c > @@ -255,13 +255,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > return ret; > } > > -static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = { > - .get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state, > - .apply = rockchip_pwm_apply, > - .owner = THIS_MODULE, > -}; > - > -static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 = { > +static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = { > .get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state, > .apply = rockchip_pwm_apply, > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > @@ -275,7 +269,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > .ctrl = 0x0c, > }, > .prescaler = 2, > - .ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v1, > + .ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops, > .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1, > .get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v1, > }; > @@ -289,7 +283,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > }, > .prescaler = 1, > .supports_polarity = true, > - .ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2, > + .ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops, > .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2, > .get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2, > }; > @@ -303,7 +297,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > }, > .prescaler = 1, > .supports_polarity = true, > - .ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2, > + .ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops, > .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2, > .get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2, > }; Actually, when I suggested to just implement ->apply_state() and be done with all other fields I was thinking that you could get rid of this rockchip_pwm_data struct entirely and just have 3 different pwm_ops. You seem to take the other direction here: you're removing rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 and renaming rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 into rockchip_pwm_ops.