[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WP+=vsKHj3aakdYwE4Xedwd=uya+ma22q-s+MsBTon7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:03:44 -0800
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...gle.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
linux-pwm <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update
Mark,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:15:09AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> Note that historically I remember that Linus Torvalds has stated that
>> there is no stable API within the Linux kernel and that forcing the
>> in-kernel API to never change was bad for software development. I
>> tracked down my memory and found
>> <http://lwn.net/1999/0211/a/lt-binary.html>. Linus is rabid about not
>> breaking userspace, but in general there's no strong requirement to
>> never change the driver API inside the kernel. That being said,
>> changing the driver API causes a lot of churn, so presumably changing
>> it in a backward compatible way (like adding to the API instead of
>> changing it) will make things happier.
>
> You do need to fix the users though, change is fine but you can't cause
> people's systems to break.
Yes, of course! :) Thanks for clarifying.
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists