From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Generic PWM Device API Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:18:09 +0000 Message-ID: <4D6B9281.4060700@cam.ac.uk> References: <20110228103124.GI29521@pengutronix.de> <4D6B86EE.1050908@cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D6B86EE.1050908@cam.ac.uk> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Cc: Sascha Hauer , Bill Gatliff , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org On 02/28/11 11:28, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 02/28/11 10:31, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 09:38:38PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: >>> Andrew, Linus: >>> >>> >>> The git repository described in the following pull request implements >>> a generic PWM device driver API. This API is intended to eventually >>> supercede the existing PWM device drivers, but during a migration >>> period will coexist peacefully with them. >> >> Sorry for the late answer, but it took some time to read the patches >> again. >> >> Is it a good idea to have to APIs for the same thing in the kernel? >> The old API has users whereas the new API has none. How can we migrate >> from one API to the other when for example the backlight pwm driver >> depends on the old API, SoC level drivers implement the old API, but >> the atmel pwm driver is only available for the new API? >> > See the info in Bill's previous postings. He has other drivers queued > up but wants to break up the review burden by merging this core stuff > first... > Come to think of it, Bill, could you post these at this stage to show the full benefit of this move?