On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 03:42:01AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > <lots of legitimate frustration snipped> > So.. > > Trent, I encourage you to collect your patch snippets into complete patch, > and post it so it could slip into 2.6.27 (the bad thing is that your > approach involves changes to the existing drivers, not just adding new > driver that could slip even into -rc9). > > That is, I have a bunch of patches in my stg queue on which I can work > with more fun, so I'm somewhat glad that somebody will take care of the > notorious OF GPIO LEDs. ;-)
Okay. Thank you for all your work; it is *much* appreciated. I'm sorry that these things didn't come up earlier and I feel your pain. :-) Trent, I'd be happy to help and do what I can to expedite getting of gpio-leds support merged in the .27 window. > > I like the first better. It follows the example from the docs about how > > devices with multiple gpios should work too. > > IMO, each LED is a device. So, I would rather define compatible = <> for > each led. If we choose that all gpio-leds will have a common parent, then I'd still argue for the compatible property to be on the parent node because all the children are homogeneous. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
