On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:09 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 02/10/2014 02:16 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
> > The HAVE_PWM symbol is only for legacy platforms that provide
> > the PWM API without using the generic framework. However, legacy
> > PWM drivers were already moved to the generic PWM
On 02/10/2014 02:16 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
The HAVE_PWM symbol is only for legacy platforms that provide
the PWM API without using the generic framework. However, legacy
PWM drivers were already moved to the generic PWM framework.
Thus, HAVE_PWM should be removed, because HAVE_PWM is not
required
On 02/10/2014 02:16 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
The HAVE_PWM symbol is only for legacy platforms that provide
the PWM API without using the generic framework. However, legacy
PWM drivers were already moved to the generic PWM framework.
Thus, HAVE_PWM should be removed, because HAVE_PWM is not
required
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:09 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 02/10/2014 02:16 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
The HAVE_PWM symbol is only for legacy platforms that provide
the PWM API without using the generic framework. However, legacy
PWM drivers were already moved to the generic PWM
The HAVE_PWM symbol is only for legacy platforms that provide
the PWM API without using the generic framework. However, legacy
PWM drivers were already moved to the generic PWM framework.
Thus, HAVE_PWM should be removed, because HAVE_PWM is not
required anymore.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
---
The HAVE_PWM symbol is only for legacy platforms that provide
the PWM API without using the generic framework. However, legacy
PWM drivers were already moved to the generic PWM framework.
Thus, HAVE_PWM should be removed, because HAVE_PWM is not
required anymore.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han
6 matches
Mail list logo