linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] PWM: add pwm framework support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201106291300.28533.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:00:28 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PWM: add pwm framework support

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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/