From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add OMAP Support for Generic PWM Devices using Dual-mode Timers Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:20:31 -0800 Message-ID: <20101116202031.GD9264@atomide.com> References: <87hbfhcagv.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:25411 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751014Ab0KPUUm (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:20:42 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87hbfhcagv.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Grant Erickson , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Kevin Hilman [101116 11:43]: > Grant Erickson writes: > > [...] > > >> Before something like this can merge, I would rather see > >> > >> 1) generic PWM framework pushed along and merged > >> 2) the dmtimer hwmod conversion finished > >> > >> Yes, I know it's a lot more work to fix the core/framework code before > >> having a feature included, but having something more generic that can > >> actually support multiple PWM sources is clearly needed. > > > > No disagreement on the long-term architectural and design goals. All good > > stuff. > > > > However, patches have to be submitted against the repository and branch we > > have today, not those we might have tomorrow. > > This comment is where we diverge. > > An alternative to waiting for the generic framework cleanup/refactor > work is to contribute to it and help it along. Yeah I agree, with Kevin. We should not export any more omap specific functions in arch/arm/*omap*/ as they always lead into maintenance nightmares later on. We still have several merge cycles of work just to get rid of the existing exported functions. Regards, Tony