From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PWM: add pwm framework support
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:00:28 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@st.com>, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
        Ryan Mallon <ryan@bluewatersys.com>
References: <1309255368-9775-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <201106281903.06121.arnd@arndb.de> <20110629085046.GM6069@pengutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20110629085046.GM6069@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201106291300.28533.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 975
Lines: 20

On Wednesday 29 June 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> The other type is some mfd drivers which implement the pwm API themselves
> right now. These are currently incompatible with the pwm framework anyway.
> If a board wants to connect the mfd pwm to its backlight, the current
> pwm_request based on an integer id is not suitable anymore. We need
> a (struct device *dev, char *id) based pwm_request function then.
> So my plan is to change the pwm API once we have all in tree drivers
> in drivers/pwm.

Ok, sounds good. I don't much like the idea of using a string identifier
for this, but let's discuss that when we get there. Using fixed numbers
for the first version seems totally reasonable, as it keeps the existing
API.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/