Re: [PATCH RFC] leds: pca9685: Remove leds-pca9685 driver

[Axel Lin]

2014-04-06 17:30 GMT+08:00 Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:19:41AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>> This driver is replaced by pwm-pca9685 driver and there is no user uses this
>> driver in current tree. So remove it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Hi,
>> I found there is a modalias conflict between leds-pca9685.ko and pwm-pca9685.ko.
>> I think this conflict will cause problem.
>> After checking the code, I think leds-pca9685 is replaced by pwm-pca9685.
>
> This confused me for a second, as there was no driver to replace when I wrote
> the pwm-pca9685 driver and I thought I missed something. But it seems I didn't
> and the pwm-pca9685 is actually older.

Ah.. right, leds-pca9685 is a newer driver.

2013-10-22 leds: Added driver for the NXP PCA9685 I2C chip
2013-05-30 pwm: add pca9685 driver

>
>> Use git grep to check current tree and found there is no user uses leds-pca9685.
>> So this patch removes leds-pca9685 driver.
>>
>
> If the platform setup is needed, maybe this can be integrated into the pwm driver
> instead of completely dropping it. I don't care for platform code, but if someone
> does, I don't want him to lose the support for it.

Given the fact there is no user in current tree uses leds-pca9685,
I suspect if we need to add platform setup to pwm-pca9685.
( I think the trend is to use DT, not the reverse )

>
> Otherwise I am okay with this drop (okay, I'm completely biased of course ;-)).
> But technically the pca9685 is not solely a LED driver IC, but a PWM IC, so it
> is in the wrong place anyhow.

I also think PWM subsystem is better for this chip which is a PWM IC.

Thanks for the review,
Axel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/