Re: [PATCH 3/3] pwm: jz4740: Add support for the JZ4725B

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Paul,

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 07:51:23PM +0200, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Le dim. 24 mai 2020 à 19:37, Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 02:14:45PM +0200, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > >  @@ -214,6 +218,7 @@ static int jz4740_pwm_probe(struct
> > > platform_device *pdev)
> > >   {
> > >   	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > >   	struct jz4740_pwm_chip *jz4740;
> > >  +	const struct soc_info *info = device_get_match_data(dev);
> > > 
> > >   	jz4740 = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*jz4740), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >   	if (!jz4740)
> > >  @@ -227,8 +232,8 @@ static int jz4740_pwm_probe(struct
> > > platform_device *pdev)
> > > 
> > >   	jz4740->chip.dev = dev;
> > >   	jz4740->chip.ops = &jz4740_pwm_ops;
> > >  -	jz4740->chip.npwm = NUM_PWM;
> > >   	jz4740->chip.base = -1;
> > >  +	jz4740->chip.npwm = info ? info->num_pwms : NUM_PWM;
> > 
> > Can info be actually NULL? I don't think so, so you can just use
> > info->num_pwms here and drop the definition of NUM_PWM.
> 
> In *theory* it can be NULL if the kernel is configured without CONFIG_OF,
> which will never happen on any board supported by this driver. I can add a
> dependency on CONFIG_OF in V2, then use info->num_pwms there.

I'd prefer just something like:

	if (!info)
		return -EINVAL;

instead of a dependency on CONFIG_OF.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |