On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 23:28, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> document the module name in the help ?
>
> Not sure what you are asking. ÂLike this?
yes, but it seems to be more common to use a style like so:
config xxx
help
normal help text
To compile this driver as module, choose M here: the
module will be called gpio-pwm.
>>> +static struct pwm_device_ops gpio_pwm_device_ops = {
>>> +    .config     = gpio_pwm_config,
>>> + Â Â Â .config_nosleep = gpio_pwm_config_nosleep,
>>> +    .request    Â= gpio_pwm_request,
>>> +};
>>
>> is this struct not constified ? Âsame for some of the other structs in
>> this file ...
>
> It isn't constified, but it should be. ÂBut if I do, I get lots of
> "discards qualifiers" warnings because const isn't used in the
> functions I pass these structures to. ÂSo I kind of have to leave it
> as-is, no?
it just means the pwm framework needs to be constified in the core code first :)
>> Âis that useful if they cant call any of the config funcs ?
>
> Users of gpio_pwm aren't supposed to call the config functions in
> gpio-pwm.c, they are supposed to invoke them indirectly via the
> regular PWM API (pwm.c).
hmm, i thought the configfs integration did more than just call the
create/destroy funcs. considering the common gpio code has sysfs
hooks for playing with gpios from userspace, perhaps there should be a
sysfs hook here too rather than requiring configfs ...
-mike
--
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
