On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Anton Vorontsov
<avorontsov@ru.mvista.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:04:22AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 06:13:35PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 06:05:19PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > > I think it would be better to have a module that scans the device tree
>> > > > for LED nodes and registers a single leds-gpio platform device for the
>> > > > whole lot.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thoughts?
>> > >
>> > > I like the idea, thanks.
>> >
>> > Ugh, no. The idea sounds good, but in practice it isn't, since we'll
>> > have to handle suspend/resume ops ourselves. When we stick with the
>> > device/driver model we're getting all this for free.
>>
>> Won't the leds-gpio driver give you suspend/resume support?
>
> Ah. I just wrongly read your message. You're purposing to use gpio
> leds platform driver... I think this is doable, yes.

Alternately, I would also be okay with a scheme where all LED nodes
have a common parent and an of_platform driver would bind against the
parent node; not the individual children.  Then the leds-gpio driver
could be refactored to have both platform and of_platform bus
bindings.

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/