Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:03:04 +0100
From:   Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To:     Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@st.com>
Cc:     thierry.reding@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, tduszyns@gmail.com,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, alexandre.torgue@st.com,
        mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pwm: core: add consumer device link
Message-ID: <20190212090304.3j4iqj6sodtdvhr7@pengutronix.de>
References: <1549901522-15071-1-git-send-email-fabrice.gasnier@st.com>
 <1549901522-15071-4-git-send-email-fabrice.gasnier@st.com>
 <20190211190628.eisyi6wjus4ltrrn@pengutronix.de>
 <b9f1bb5c-36cd-f6e6-e6c6-a0257cf38b7e@st.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <b9f1bb5c-36cd-f6e6-e6c6-a0257cf38b7e@st.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Fabrice,

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:31:37AM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> On 2/11/19 8:06 PM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:12:02PM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> >> @@ -943,6 +950,8 @@ struct pwm_device *devm_of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
> >>  	if (!IS_ERR(pwm)) {
> >>  		*ptr = pwm;
> >>  		devres_add(dev, ptr);
> >> +		device_link_add(dev, pwm->chip->dev,
> >> +				DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER);
> > 
> > IMHO it's surprising that devm_of_pwm_get() does more than of_pwm_get()
> > + devres stuff. I'd put device_link_add() into of_pwm_get().
> 
> Hi Uwe,
> 
> I also agree with this. But I think this implies modifying the API for
> of_pwm_get():
>  /**
>   * of_pwm_get() - request a PWM via the PWM framework
> + * @dev: device for PWM consumer
>   * @np: device node to get the PWM from
>   * @con_id: consumer name
> 
> It seems there aren't much of_pwm_get() users currently.
> Does this look sensible ?

In my eyes this looks sensible, yes.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |