From: Ed W <lists@wildgooses.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel@wildgooses.com, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
daniel@caiaq.de, Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: New PCEngines Alix LED driver using gpio interface
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:41:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D9E3D7D.3090601@wildgooses.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110407145836.3cde7699.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On 07/04/2011 22:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:51:25 +0000
> kernel@wildgooses.com wrote:
>
>> From: Ed Wildgoose <kernel@wildgooses.com>
>>
>> This new driver replaces the old PCEngines Alix 2/3 LED driver with
>> a new driver that controls the LEDs through the leds-gpio driver.
>> The old driver accessed GPIOs directly, which created a conflict
>> and prevented also loading the cs5535-gio driver to read other
>> GPIOs on the Alix board. With this new driver, both are loaded
>> and therefore it's possible to access both the LEDs and onboard GPIOs
>>
>> This driver is based on leds-net5501.c
>> by: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>
>> Additionally it relies on parts of the patch: 7f131cf3ed
>> by: Daniel Mack <daniel@caiaq.de> to perform detection of the Alix board
> As far as I can tell from looking at it, this driver maintains all the
> same interfaces and behaviour as the old version. Am I right?
>
Yes, this is correct. The substance of the change is simply to use the
leds-gpio interface rather than fiddling with gpio settings directly.
However, please note that Grant and Andres suggested that the driver
should instead move to "arch" and out of leds? Therefore, I created an
updated version of this patch which you can find from message id:
"1300553466-23873-1-git-send-email-kernel@wildgooses.com", ie:
http://lists.zerezo.com/linux-kernel/msg27455553.html
Additionally this updated patch has a slightly amended copyright -
several folks thought that the updated copyright statement was more
appropriate
My apologies that this updated patch was not more clearly marked as such
- Grant has taken the time to point out how I should submit patches more
clearly in the future
I would be happy to shuffle the code around further if anyone has an
opinion?
Thanks for picking this up
Ed W
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-07 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-06 16:51 [PATCH] leds: New PCEngines Alix LED driver using gpio interface kernel
2011-04-07 21:58 ` Andrew Morton
2011-04-07 22:41 ` Ed W [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-03-17 18:17 Feedback please: " Grant Likely
2011-03-18 18:12 ` kernel
2011-03-18 18:32 ` Ed W
2011-03-18 22:48 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D9E3D7D.3090601@wildgooses.com \
--to=lists@wildgooses.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=daniel@caiaq.de \
--cc=dilinger@queued.net \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=kernel@wildgooses.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox