On 27.03.2017 16:15, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 27/03/2017 at 15:02:37 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> Hi Claudiu,
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:29:34 +0200
>> Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.bez...@microchip.com> wrote:
>>
>>> static const struct platform_device_id atmel_pwm_devtypes[] = {
>>> {
>>> .name = "at91sam9rl-pwm",
>>> - .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&atmel_pwm_data_v1,
>>> + .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&atmel_pwm_regs_v1,
>>> }, {
>>> .name = "sama5d3-pwm",
>>> - .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&atmel_pwm_data_v2,
>>> + .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&atmel_pwm_regs_v2,
>>> }, {
>>> /* sentinel */
>>> },
>> Unrelated to this series, but can you prepare a patch to get rid of
>> this platform id table (AT91 platforms have completely switched to DT
>> for quite some time now).
>>
> Please, don't until AVR32 is gone.
Sure, I will wait for it.
>
>> You can also get rid of the "if (pdev->dev.of_node)" condition in
>> atmel_pwm_probe() since it's guaranteed to be true, otherwise the
>> ->probe() method wouldn't be called.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Boris
