[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=BXC6uX7DaNGs_cH9h_1xdPCkdmQ8CDqCXwVgf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:19:06 -0600
From: Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
To: Jack Stone <jwjstone@...tmail.fm>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PWM v6 1/3] PWM: Implement a generic PWM framework
Jack:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jack Stone <jwjstone@...tmail.fm> wrote:
> It's up to you, of course, but I don't see why I would want to choose.
It isn't that I want users to be able to choose between GENERIC_PWM
and the platform-specific PWM; it's that I want to have the option of
doing PWM, or not. Once a machine/platform is converted over to
GENERIC_PWM, there won't be any going back.
> It makes life much easier for users if they only have to support one way
> of talking to PWM devices and any device can be connected to any user,
> with appropriate connections provided by platform data.
Right. That's the vision, in fact. But I don't have the manpower to
do a complete conversion to GENERIC_PWM all at once, so I'm trying to
take it in stages. Introduce the generic API first, and then switch
machines/platforms over to it one at a time.
> It seems much simpler to me to always use it in appropriate
> drivers/users and therefore if the person configuring the kernel does
> not have to know anything new and the support will only be included if
> needed.
Right.
It isn't that I want users to be able to decide between the "new PWM"
and "old PWM" APIs; it's that I want them to be able to turn PWM
support on or off at compile time.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
bgat@...lgatliff.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists