Hi Bill, On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Trilok Soni <soni.trilok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Luotao Fu, > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Luotao Fu <l.fu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 08:42:36PM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: >>> Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> >On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 16:32, Bill Gatliff wrote: >>> >>--- a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c >>> >>+++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c >>> >>@@ -1,153 +1,167 @@ >>> >>-/* >>> >>- * linux/drivers/leds-pwm.c >>> >>- * >>> >>- * simple PWM based LED control >>> >>- * >>> >>- * Copyright 2009 Luotao Fu @ Pengutronix (l.fu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) >>> >>- * >>> >>- * based on leds-gpio.c by Raphael Assenat <raph@xxxxxx> >>> >>- * >>> >>- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >>> >>- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as >>> >>- * published by the Free Software Foundation. >>> >>- */ >>> > >>> >this should not be removed. if you wanted to add your copyright line, >>> >then that's fine, but the rest needs to stay. >>> >>> For the record, the reason the file looks like it does is because I >>> wrote an original one that replaced the previous leds-pwm.c--- but >>> obviously git didn't see it that way when it produced the diff. >>> >>> I certainly wasn't trying to write-out anyone's copyright! I don't >>> have a problem with their names appearing in the file, regardless, >>> so I'll put them back in. If they have problems with their names >>> appearing therein, they can let me know. :) >> >> I certainly don't have any problems with that. ;-) As a matter of fact. >> My driver was a really simple spinoff of the gpio led driver. Nothing >> fancy in there. So I'm certainly happy that the driver will eventually >> see a rewrite. I'm just a little surprsied as I caught up this mail >> quite by occasion since I'm not subscribed to linux-embedded (time to do >> it now, I think ;-)). 'd be nice if you could put the copyright hint >> back in there. I'd test it by chance. >> >> The framework looks nice. The recent pwm stuff was more a loose policy >> and spreaded in different places in kernel. Nice to have a real frame >> work now. Nice work! > > Your observation is correct, and that's why I prefer to have this > framework in mainline ASAP. It becomes more worst in the embedded > system, when you would like to share the device drivers in open-source > with different semiconductor vendor's SoCs. If you look at the Haptics > patches on LKML, you will observe this problem, and why we need to > have common PWM APIs in mainline. Please always add LKML in CC for PWM framework patches to get more reviewers :). -- ---Trilok Soni http://triloksoni.wordpress.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/triloksoni -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
