On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:53:11AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > 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. Yes, I have a local patch that deprecates pwm_request() and pwm_free() to make it easy to spot them (though git grep does a better job actually as it doesn't require compilation). I originally planned to replace all pwm_request()/pwm_free() usage by pwm_get()/pwm_put() already for 3.8 but got side-tracked with other stuff but I hope I can make it for 3.9. If that works out we could remove pwm_request() and pwm_free() completely for 3.10. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpdHmFSnC26k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
