On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 09:39:26PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Thierry, > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 06:10:45PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > Like I said, that's not what I was saying. I was merely saying that if > > there aren't any use-cases that current users rely on that would be > > broken by using this simpler implementation, then I'm okay with it, even > > if it's less flexible than a more complicated implementation. It should > > be possible to determine what the current users are by inspecting device > > trees present in the kernel. Anything outside the kernel isn't something > > we need to consider, as usual. > > If "users in mainline" is the criteria that's a word.
I didn't say "users in mainline", I said "use-cases". What I don't want to happen is for this change under discussion to break any existing use- cases of any existing users in the kernel. I said that we can determine what the existing users are by looking at which device trees use the compatible strings that the driver matches on. > So you agree we remove the following drivers?: > > - pwm-hibvt.c > Last driver specific change in Feb 2019, no mainline user > - pwm-sprd.c > Last driver specific change in Aug 2019, no mainline user No, that's an extrapolation of what I was saying above. Drivers with no apparent users are a separate topic, so don't conflate it with the issue at hand. While it's certainly unfortunate that these don't seem to be used, I see no reason why we should remove them. They don't create much of a maintenance burden, so I'm fine with keeping them in the hopes that users may still show up at some point. > Most PWMs are added to cpu.dtsi files with status = "disabled", I wonder > if it makes sense to check the machine.dts files if some of the PMWs are > completely unused. Do you consider status = "okay" a use that we have to > retain even if the node has no phandle? A PWM controller may be in use via sysfs even if it has no phandle. Thierry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
