[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221110102317.ea64tgqd77kvygvt@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:23:17 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
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 11:58:53AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.
Given that the move is something you do just en passant in the earlier
patch , I consider my suggestion cleaner. I'd call that 0.5 * insist.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists