[PATCH 2/5] pwm: Drop useless member .of_pwm_n_cells of struct pwm_chip

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 1:35 PM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Apart from the two of_xlate implementations this member is write-only.
> In the of_xlate functions of_pwm_xlate_with_flags() and
> of_pwm_single_xlate() it's more sensible to check for args->args_count
> because this is what is actually used in the device tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c |  1 -
>  drivers/pwm/core.c                    | 22 +++-------------------
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c            |  1 -
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c             |  1 -
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.c                 |  4 +---
>  include/linux/pwm.h                   |  2 --
>  6 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

I haven't done massive thinking about this, but it seems reasonable to
me. I remember being confused about why we needed some of these extra
checks ages ago when I looked at this code, so getting rid of them
makes sense to me.

I've been involved with both the ti-sn65dsi86.c and the pwm-cros-ec.c
code and both looks fine to me.

I'm an official reviewer for ti-sn65dsi86.c and I'm fairly happy with
this tag for it:

Acked-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>

...and I think it would be fine to go through the PWM tree. If one of
the senior drm-misc maintainers disagrees with me, however, then you
should listen to them rather than me.

-Doug