linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] pwm: New driver to support PWM driven LEDs on TWL4030/6030 series of PMICs

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: <50B33783.80704@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:33:55 +0100
From:	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
CC:	Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
	Grazvydas Ignotas <notasas@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] pwm: New driver to support PWM driven LEDs on
 TWL4030/6030 series of PMICs

On 11/26/2012 10:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> Doesn't this belong in the drivers/leds subsystem? Besides that, the
>>> same comments as for the previous patch apply. One additional note
>>> below.
>>
>> The PINs itself are called as LED but they are PWMs at the end. If we
>> represent them as PWMs they can be used for different purposes which is going
>> to be needed for example in BeagleBoard, where the LEDA (PWMA) is used as a
>> GPO to enable/disable the USB host power.
> 
> Heh, that's an interesting use-case for a PWM. =)

You should have seen the expression on my face when I saw this on the
schematics ;)

>> Also the removed 'twl6030-pwm' driver was only controlled the LED part of twl6030.
>> With this series I enable the use of the PWMs and the PWMs behind of the LED
>> functions to give us flexibility on how we are using them.
> 
> Alright, we can keep it in the PWM subsystem then.

Thank you.

>>>> +static struct platform_driver twl_pwmled_driver = {
>>>> +	.driver = {
>>>> +		.name = "twl-pwmled",
>>>> +		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(twl_pwmled_of_match),
>>>> +	},
>>>> +	.probe = twl_pwmled_probe,
>>>> +	.remove = __devexit_p(twl_pwmled_remove),
>>>
>>> You didn't annotate twl_pwmled_remove() with __devexit, so __devexit_p
>>> isn't needed here either.
>>
>> Oh yes, I have also received patches from a series which removes the
>> _devexit_p() from the kernel.
>> But should the __devexit need to be added to the remove function?
> 
> __devexit_p without a corresponding __devexit doesn't make sense. But as
> all of __devinit, __devexit and __devexit_p will be removed sooner or
> later, new code just shouldn't bother adding it. In this case, just drop
> __devexit_p.

I'll get rid of them.

Thank you,
Péter
--
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/