On 12/11/2012 10:48 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >> On 12/11/2012 10:31 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:57:51AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >>> Okay, if there are no intree users that may be broken, then it should be >>> fine to remove it. In that case you might want to remove the pwm_id >>> field as well instead of deprecating it in this patch. >> >> The reason I marked the pwm_id as deprecated is to signal to out of tree users >> (if any) that they should stop using it since it is going to go away in the >> next cycle. >> If we remove it right away the sdp4030 board file will not going to compile in >> subsystem trees, only in linux-next. > > Okay, go ahead then. As long as the field will be removed eventually > that's fine with me. Thank you and yes, it will be removed. Probably it would be a good thing to check other places for legacy pwm_request() users and prepare them to move to (devm_)pwm_get gracefully over coming kernel releases. -- Péter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
