From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751261Ab1F3RCe (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:02:34 -0400 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:47659 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750976Ab1F3RCd (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:02:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:02:29 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer To: Bill Gatliff Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, viresh kumar , Shawn Guo , Ryan Mallon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PWM: add pwm framework support Message-ID: <20110630170229.GP6069@pengutronix.de> References: <1309430517-23821-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <1309430517-23821-2-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <201106301441.24493.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Sent-From: Pengutronix Hildesheim X-URL: http://www.pengutronix.de/ X-IRC: #ptxdist @freenode X-Accept-Language: de,en X-Accept-Content-Type: text/plain X-Uptime: 18:33:52 up 8 days, 22:21, 31 users, load average: 0.48, 0.44, 0.35 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:215:17ff:fe12:23b0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sha@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bill, On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:17:54AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Guys: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > A lot of people want to see a framework get merged, and I think it's > > great that Sascha has volunteered to do the work to push that > > through this time, especially since you have not been able to > > finish your work. > > Sascha is wasting his time by reinventing the wheel. He's traveling > over exactly the same path I have already covered. In fact, some of > his reviewer comments are almost word-for-word the same as those I > have received and addressed in the past. > > My patches were always kept current in this mailing list and others, > and Sascha clearly has the skills necessary to make improvements and > corrections should he have chosen to do so. I think that you made the fundamental mistake to completly ignore the existing pwm API and its users. With a competing api we are basically stuck. We can't convert the existing hardware drivers to the new API because leds-pwm.c, pwm_bl.c and others still depend on the old API and boards using it would break. We can't convert the function drivers either because again this would break boards for which only an old style pwm driver exists. So the logical thing to do is to put a step in between: Consolidate the existing drivers and *then* change the API atomically so that nothing breaks. Your patches don't do this, so I don't think at all that what I did is duplication of work. Given the current rush to move drivers out of arch/ it probably won't take long until all pwm drivers are moved to drivers/pwm/ and converted to use the framework, and then you have a good base to put your work onto. So please don't complain too much: We are currently only doing the work you didn't want to do. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:02:29 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] PWM: add pwm framework support In-Reply-To: References: <1309430517-23821-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <1309430517-23821-2-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <201106301441.24493.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20110630170229.GP6069@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Bill, On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:17:54AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Guys: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > A lot of people want to see a framework get merged, and I think it's > > great that Sascha has volunteered to do the work to push that > > through this time, especially since you have not been able to > > finish your work. > > Sascha is wasting his time by reinventing the wheel. He's traveling > over exactly the same path I have already covered. In fact, some of > his reviewer comments are almost word-for-word the same as those I > have received and addressed in the past. > > My patches were always kept current in this mailing list and others, > and Sascha clearly has the skills necessary to make improvements and > corrections should he have chosen to do so. I think that you made the fundamental mistake to completly ignore the existing pwm API and its users. With a competing api we are basically stuck. We can't convert the existing hardware drivers to the new API because leds-pwm.c, pwm_bl.c and others still depend on the old API and boards using it would break. We can't convert the function drivers either because again this would break boards for which only an old style pwm driver exists. So the logical thing to do is to put a step in between: Consolidate the existing drivers and *then* change the API atomically so that nothing breaks. Your patches don't do this, so I don't think at all that what I did is duplication of work. Given the current rush to move drivers out of arch/ it probably won't take long until all pwm drivers are moved to drivers/pwm/ and converted to use the framework, and then you have a good base to put your work onto. So please don't complain too much: We are currently only doing the work you didn't want to do. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |