On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/19/2012 06:07 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:52:07 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> This GPIO driver should not configure anything else then GPIOs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> >> >> I'm not sure if this is the right direction. I actually have no problem >> with a single driver that registers itself with multiple interfaces (ie. >> GPIO and PWM) if it makes sense for it to do so. I suspec that a lot of >> the multifunction device drivers break things up more than is strictly >> necessary. > > We have PWM drivers for these IPs. As you remember this is the reason I > started to work on the gpio-pwm driver so we can have cleaner, more generic > way to map a PWM as a gpio. I really don't like the idea of having the same > PWM code sitting in various places in the kernel just because it was easier to > hack it like that rather then to make an effort for a clean implementation. > The PWM handling in the gpio-twl4030 driver is a prime example of this IMHO. > It is just a shortcut, nothing else. Ah, right. (there's nothing wrong with my memory, it's just short) :-p g. -- 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
