[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACxGe6tBoyp3oXJP-uoDxHnP2YPJn2E-f1CToqpp20nqapOiJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:45:50 +0000
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] gpio: twl4030: TODO comment to remove the PWMA/B
(LEDA/B) handling
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com> wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 06:07 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:52:07 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com> wrote:
>>> This GPIO driver should not configure anything else then GPIOs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is the right direction. I actually have no problem
>> with a single driver that registers itself with multiple interfaces (ie.
>> GPIO and PWM) if it makes sense for it to do so. I suspec that a lot of
>> the multifunction device drivers break things up more than is strictly
>> necessary.
>
> We have PWM drivers for these IPs. As you remember this is the reason I
> started to work on the gpio-pwm driver so we can have cleaner, more generic
> way to map a PWM as a gpio. I really don't like the idea of having the same
> PWM code sitting in various places in the kernel just because it was easier to
> hack it like that rather then to make an effort for a clean implementation.
> The PWM handling in the gpio-twl4030 driver is a prime example of this IMHO.
> It is just a shortcut, nothing else.
Ah, right. (there's nothing wrong with my memory, it's just short) :-p
g.
--
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