From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Ujfalusi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] leds: leds-pwm: Convert to use devm_get_pwm Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:53:11 +0100 Message-ID: <50C70287.1060006@ti.com> References: <1355133637-2784-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <3193669.Hv54bBklsP@barack> <20121211083632.GC27084@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <1406670.ryvqfkiNXS@barack> <20121211093100.GA8437@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50C6FF69.3030001@ti.com> <20121211094812.GA22222@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121211094812.GA22222-RM9K5IK7kjIyiCvfTdI0JKcOhU4Rzj621B7CTYaBSLdn68oJJulU0Q@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Thierry Reding Cc: linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Bryan Wu , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Richard Purdie , linux-leds-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 12/11/2012 10:48 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >> On 12/11/2012 10:31 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:57:51AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >>> Okay, if there are no intree users that may be broken, then it should be >>> fine to remove it. In that case you might want to remove the pwm_id >>> field as well instead of deprecating it in this patch. >> >> The reason I marked the pwm_id as deprecated is to signal to out of tree= users >> (if any) that they should stop using it since it is going to go away in = the >> next cycle. >> If we remove it right away the sdp4030 board file will not going to comp= ile in >> subsystem trees, only in linux-next. > = > Okay, go ahead then. As long as the field will be removed eventually > that's fine with me. Thank you and yes, it will be removed. Probably it would be a good thing to check other places for legacy pwm_request() users and prepare them to move to (devm_)pwm_get gracefully o= ver coming kernel releases. -- = P=E9ter