From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36EEADDDF3 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:02:31 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Proposal for a Generic PWM Device API From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Bill Gatliff In-Reply-To: <48EED4D1.2040506@billgatliff.com> References: <1223608819.8157.127.camel@pasglop> <48EED4D1.2040506@billgatliff.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:02:23 +1100 Message-Id: <1223614943.8157.158.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 23:06 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:43 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: > >> This series proposes a "generic PWM" driver API. > >> > >> This proposed API is motivated by the author's need to support > >> pluggable devices; a secondary objective is to consolidate the > >> existing PWM implementations behind an agreeable, consistent, > >> redundancy-reducing interface. > > > > .../... > > > > You should send your patches to the main linux kernel list ! > > Perhaps. But it seemed more relevant to this crowd, and the linux-embedded > crowd, and the linux-arm-kernel crowd. Sure but if you want then applied, you probably still need lkml and andrew. > At the very least, it made sense to present it in this sort of venue first. > Given that it's a "global" API proposal, I suppose I'll have to run it by lkml > at some point--- unless one of the aforementioned groups can mainline it themselves. For review and comments, sure. Cheers,