On 26/10/15 10:28, Sascha Hauer wrote:

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:56:24AM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:

quoted

quoted

+	.val_bits = 32,
+	.reg_stride = 4,
+};
+
+static int mtk_efuse_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+	struct resource *res;
+	struct nvmem_device *nvmem;
+	struct nvmem_config *econfig;
+	struct regmap *regmap;
+	void __iomem *base;
+
+	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
+	base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
+	if (IS_ERR(base))
+		return PTR_ERR(base);
+
+	econfig = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*econfig), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!econfig)
+		return -ENOMEM;

Why not use static econfig variable?

Because drivers should not assume there is only one instance of them in
the system. The qfprom driver does this and it's only a matter of

Good point, Yes, you are right. If MTK has possibility of having more 
than one efuse we can leave the code as it is.

putting a second qcom,qfprom node into the device tree to break the
driver.

It would indeed.
--srini

Sascha