On Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:00 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:08:22PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > On 26/09/13 14:51, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:03:06PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > [...] > > >> But if you and Thierry think this version is good, I'll take it. > > > > > > That sounds like you want to take it through the fbdev tree. Jingoo is > > > listed (along with Richard, but he hasn't been responsive to email for > > > years) as maintainer for the backlight subsystem. Furthermore back at > > > > Ah, so they are. I just thought it falls under fbdev, as it's under > > drivers/video/ =). > > > > I don't have any particular "want" to take it through fbdev tree. But I > > can take it. > > > > > the time when I began working on the PWM subsystem, the backlight sub- > > > system was pretty much orphaned, and pwm-backlight was by far the > > > biggest user of the PWM subsystem. I adopted the driver at the time > > > because it needed to be updated for PWM subsystem changes. > > > > > > What's the plan going forward? Given the coupling between the PWM > > > subsystem and the pwm-backlight driver it might be useful to keep > > > maintaining it as part of the PWM subsystem. On the other hand, there's > > > some coupling between the driver and the backlight subsystem too. > > > > And backlight is coupled with fbdev... Which is something I don't like. > > > > > I have a couple of patches queued up for 3.13 that rework parts of the > > > driver, so it'd be good to know how you guys want to handle this. > > > > Well. I'm happy if somebody wants to maintain the backlight side. In > > fact, I'd be happy if somebody would start restructuring it totally, > > it's rather messy. The link with fbdev should be removed, and some > > backlight drivers are actually panel drivers. However, perhaps Common > > Display Framework is required until it can be fully cleaned. > > > > So... For the time being, I'm fine with merging pwm-backlight via any > > tree that works best. I'm presuming here that backlight framework and > > fbdev (for the parts that are relevant for backlight) are not really > > being changed, so there shouldn't be conflicts. > > In that case I'll just take it through the PWM tree as I've done for the > past year. I have some other changes planned for the PWM framework for > the near future that'll create dependencies between the PWM tree and the > pwm-backlight driver, so keeping them in one tree will make it easier to > merge them. Yes, I think so. I want you to take the patches for pwm-backlight through the PWM tree, as you have done. > > Longer term it probably makes sense, as you say, for someone to take > over the backlight subsystem completely and give it the love it could > really use. If Jingoo can do that, it'd be great. Perhaps it'd be a good > idea to remove Richard as maintainer since he's obviously no longer > responding to emails. Keeping him Cc'ed on all patches is just > pointless. OK, I will send the patch to remove Richard as maintainer. I will make a git tree and mailing-list for the backlight subsystem later. However, I am not certain when it will be done. :-( Best regards, Jingoo Han -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
