linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: pwm-tiecap: Add device-tree binding support for APWM driver

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

Date:	Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:07:52 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
Cc:	"Philip, Avinash" <avinashphilip@...com>,
	grant.likely@...retlab.ca, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
	rob@...dley.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	gururaja.hebbar@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: pwm-tiecap: Add device-tree binding support for
 APWM driver

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:46:16PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> On 10/2/2012 11:30 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:57:42PM +0530, Philip, Avinash wrote:
> > [...]
> >> +#include <linux/platform_data/ti-pwmss.h>
> > [...]
> >> +static struct pwmss_platform_data am33xx_data = {
> >> +	.has_configspace	= true,
> >> +};
> > 
> > This structure is defined in a public header. I don't see why it has to,
> > given that it's only used to associate some data with an of_device_id
> > entry below. Since AM33xx never had anything but OF support in the
> > mainline kernel I don't think we should add platform data.
> 
> Avinash probably introduced platform data because the same PWM IP is
> used in older DaVinci family SoCs (DA830 and DA850) which are not
> converted to DT. There are existing boards for those SoCs  (supported in
> mainline) which could benefit from this driver.

Okay. If that's the case platform data should be added along with
support for those SoCs. Ideally, of course, the DaVinci boards would be
converted to DT first so we wouldn't have to introduce platform data
just to get rid of it when the conversion does take place. Until now it
seems like the boards have managed to get by without PWM support so
maybe they just don't use or need it?

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped