[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeV+ZBQ2M7xrP8o+KxSg9uXbcsDo5=9sU+=WF9muodDvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:58:53 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] pwm: lpss: Allow other drivers to enable PWM LPSS
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:28 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The PWM LPSS device can be embedded in another device.
> > In order to enable it, allow that drivers to probe
> > a corresponding device.
...
> Now that pwm_lpss_boardinfo lives in a different file, this makes the
> move of pwm_lpss_chip in patch 3 somewhat redundant.
But they are independent changes. At each stage (after each patch) we
should have a finished step, right? Not touching that makes me feel
that the step is half-baked. If you insist I can drop that move from
the other patch.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists