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. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpyYe72AFB_g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
