From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756283Ab1GDOHh (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 10:07:37 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:52991 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754979Ab1GDOHd (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 10:07:33 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Sascha Hauer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PWM: add pwm framework support Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 16:07:10 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.37; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Ryan Mallon , Bill Gatliff , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, viresh kumar , Shawn Guo , Ryan Mallon References: <201106301441.24493.arnd@arndb.de> <4E11994B.7070103@gmail.com> <20110704124318.GI6069@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <20110704124318.GI6069@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201107041607.10265.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:EJoJEz18ZD66AsE4F6gs4aIf1cd9BUdtveMVvvk/44D k/H92MS4FNIchtkhz2mXYgInulcnGgG8NqJtZlv3SznsVzEV06 1KR9DjpKCEGKhzeBs7j6lXCKrvtaz5cso+18GE3agXkutdsnIA voZoIMjOsUOb75YToJ4lhCg4+dJcaVUekLfPh7OeZAeTFVJwrp Iw3T7kj1MzD93hgw7Z/1A== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 04 July 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 08:43:23PM +1000, Ryan Mallon wrote: > > > The fine-grained control api could be added now. pwm_config could be > > left as is for the time being (the new api could be a wrapper around it > > to start with). Polarity control and interrupt handling apis could also > > be defined without affecting the drivers which don't need to implement > > them. Multiple channels and the sleeping/non-sleeping api are the more > > difficult ones, but at least having some sort of indication about how > > these plan to be solved would be useful. > > Again, why should we add these *now*? It only raises the chance that > there's more discussion. My impression is that there are a lot of things that could easily be done to improve the state of PWM drivers, but I don't care about the order in which they are done. My main issue is the lack of a subsystem core driver, which both you and Bill have patches for. It's clear that other people have other issues and want to see their problems addressed first. I also think that the pwm code is simple enough that we don't have to worry too much about the order that things are done in. Any patch that is making the code better should just get in and not have to wait for something else to be completed first. What we do need now is a maintainer that can coordinate the patches and merge the ones that have been agreed on. Or multiple maintainers. Arnd