From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753612Ab1B1L2m (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:28:42 -0500
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.151]:36922 "EHLO
	ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752341Ab1B1L2l (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:28:41 -0500
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Message-ID: <4D6B86EE.1050908@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:28:46 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20110122 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel.embedded,gmane.linux.kernel
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
CC: Bill Gatliff <bgat@billgatliff.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Generic PWM Device API
References: <AANLkTi=rxzrnt0QZQPJFRboSW_Fyt6zQ5S9KD4Lp=hnU@mail.gmail.com> <20110228103124.GI29521@pengutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20110228103124.GI29521@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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...