On 11/26/2012 10:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> Doesn't this belong in the drivers/leds subsystem? Besides that, the
>>> same comments as for the previous patch apply. One additional note
>>> below.
>>
>> The PINs itself are called as LED but they are PWMs at the end. If we
>> represent them as PWMs they can be used for different purposes which is going
>> to be needed for example in BeagleBoard, where the LEDA (PWMA) is used as a
>> GPO to enable/disable the USB host power.
>
> Heh, that's an interesting use-case for a PWM. =)
You should have seen the expression on my face when I saw this on the
schematics ;)
>> Also the removed 'twl6030-pwm' driver was only controlled the LED part of twl6030.
>> With this series I enable the use of the PWMs and the PWMs behind of the LED
>> functions to give us flexibility on how we are using them.
>
> Alright, we can keep it in the PWM subsystem then.
Thank you.
>>>> +static struct platform_driver twl_pwmled_driver = {
>>>> + .driver = {
>>>> + .name = "twl-pwmled",
>>>> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(twl_pwmled_of_match),
>>>> + },
>>>> + .probe = twl_pwmled_probe,
>>>> + .remove = __devexit_p(twl_pwmled_remove),
>>>
>>> You didn't annotate twl_pwmled_remove() with __devexit, so __devexit_p
>>> isn't needed here either.
>>
>> Oh yes, I have also received patches from a series which removes the
>> _devexit_p() from the kernel.
>> But should the __devexit need to be added to the remove function?
>
> __devexit_p without a corresponding __devexit doesn't make sense. But as
> all of __devinit, __devexit and __devexit_p will be removed sooner or
> later, new code just shouldn't bother adding it. In this case, just drop
> __devexit_p.
I'll get rid of them.
Thank you,
Péter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
