From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752458Ab2LKJx1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:53:27 -0500 Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:34553 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751256Ab2LKJx0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:53:26 -0500 Message-ID: <50C70287.1060006@ti.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:53:11 +0100 From: Peter Ujfalusi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thierry Reding CC: Bryan Wu , Richard Purdie , Grant Likely , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] leds: leds-pwm: Convert to use devm_get_pwm References: <1355133637-2784-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <3193669.Hv54bBklsP@barack> <20121211083632.GC27084@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <1406670.ryvqfkiNXS@barack> <20121211093100.GA8437@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50C6FF69.3030001@ti.com> <20121211094812.GA22222@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> In-Reply-To: <20121211094812.GA22222@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/11/2012 10:48 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >> On 12/11/2012 10:31 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:57:51AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >>> Okay, if there are no intree users that may be broken, then it should be >>> fine to remove it. In that case you might want to remove the pwm_id >>> field as well instead of deprecating it in this patch. >> >> The reason I marked the pwm_id as deprecated is to signal to out of tree users >> (if any) that they should stop using it since it is going to go away in the >> next cycle. >> If we remove it right away the sdp4030 board file will not going to compile in >> subsystem trees, only in linux-next. > > Okay, go ahead then. As long as the field will be removed eventually > that's fine with me. Thank you and yes, it will be removed. Probably it would be a good thing to check other places for legacy pwm_request() users and prepare them to move to (devm_)pwm_get gracefully over coming kernel releases. -- Péter