From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:00:28 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] PWM: add pwm framework support In-Reply-To: <20110629085046.GM6069@pengutronix.de> References: <1309255368-9775-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <201106281903.06121.arnd@arndb.de> <20110629085046.GM6069@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <201106291300.28533.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 29 June 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote: > The other type is some mfd drivers which implement the pwm API themselves > right now. These are currently incompatible with the pwm framework anyway. > If a board wants to connect the mfd pwm to its backlight, the current > pwm_request based on an integer id is not suitable anymore. We need > a (struct device *dev, char *id) based pwm_request function then. > So my plan is to change the pwm API once we have all in tree drivers > in drivers/pwm. Ok, sounds good. I don't much like the idea of using a string identifier for this, but let's discuss that when we get there. Using fixed numbers for the first version seems totally reasonable, as it keeps the existing API. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754929Ab1F2LA4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:00:56 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:52463 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752796Ab1F2LAy (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:00:54 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Sascha Hauer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PWM: add pwm framework support Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:00:28 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, viresh kumar , Shawn Guo , Ryan Mallon References: <1309255368-9775-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <201106281903.06121.arnd@arndb.de> <20110629085046.GM6069@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <20110629085046.GM6069@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106291300.28533.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Aw7C3Lpynui4yfYUG92QqDboPtjk/b/X7eoZX7zdrQN X2B2Ut2nlS3rAyRHYCCB773gHbinOzYkVTY+Zt2nad1q3UhfZm kSqRNIWeToYClzS0dYi4LyG38ClbHyr8IF9KWV8vQGD31lUBBH 7KzrcecECnHo6batAAkhF9Wvf0YI4IN09Z1CVXO7wQ0fC24U/v Zzwg3muANdIv7FnBR/uCw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 29 June 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote: > The other type is some mfd drivers which implement the pwm API themselves > right now. These are currently incompatible with the pwm framework anyway. > If a board wants to connect the mfd pwm to its backlight, the current > pwm_request based on an integer id is not suitable anymore. We need > a (struct device *dev, char *id) based pwm_request function then. > So my plan is to change the pwm API once we have all in tree drivers > in drivers/pwm. Ok, sounds good. I don't much like the idea of using a string identifier for this, but let's discuss that when we get there. Using fixed numbers for the first version seems totally reasonable, as it keeps the existing API. Arnd