From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Ujfalusi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] pwm: New driver to support PWM driven LEDs on TWL4030/6030 series of PMICs Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:33:55 +0100 Message-ID: <50B33783.80704@ti.com> References: <1353405382-9226-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <1353405382-9226-4-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20121123150412.GB16810@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50B3288B.5020500@ti.com> <20121126091756.GA8602@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: <20121126091756.GA8602@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thierry Reding Cc: Tero Kristo , Grazvydas Ignotas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 11/26/2012 10:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> Doesn't this belong in the drivers/leds subsystem? Besides that, th= e >>> same comments as for the previous patch apply. One additional note >>> below. >> >> The PINs itself are called as LED but they are PWMs at the end. If w= e >> represent them as PWMs they can be used for different purposes which= is going >> to be needed for example in BeagleBoard, where the LEDA (PWMA) is us= ed as a >> GPO to enable/disable the USB host power. >=20 > Heh, that's an interesting use-case for a PWM. =3D) You should have seen the expression on my face when I saw this on the schematics ;) >> Also the removed 'twl6030-pwm' driver was only controlled the LED pa= rt of twl6030. >> With this series I enable the use of the PWMs and the PWMs behind of= the LED >> functions to give us flexibility on how we are using them. >=20 > Alright, we can keep it in the PWM subsystem then. Thank you. >>>> +static struct platform_driver twl_pwmled_driver =3D { >>>> + .driver =3D { >>>> + .name =3D "twl-pwmled", >>>> + .of_match_table =3D of_match_ptr(twl_pwmled_of_match), >>>> + }, >>>> + .probe =3D twl_pwmled_probe, >>>> + .remove =3D __devexit_p(twl_pwmled_remove), >>> >>> You didn't annotate twl_pwmled_remove() with __devexit, so __devexi= t_p >>> isn't needed here either. >> >> Oh yes, I have also received patches from a series which removes the >> _devexit_p() from the kernel. >> But should the __devexit need to be added to the remove function? >=20 > __devexit_p without a corresponding __devexit doesn't make sense. But= as > all of __devinit, __devexit and __devexit_p will be removed sooner or > later, new code just shouldn't bother adding it. In this case, just d= rop > __devexit_p. I'll get rid of them. Thank you, P=E9ter