On 10/02/2018 02:32 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: > Pavel > > On 10/02/2018 02:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> On Fri 2018-09-28 13:29:46, Dan Murphy wrote: >>> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> >>> >>> This adds backlight support for the following TI LMU >>> chips: LM3532, LM3631, LM3632, LM3633, LM3695 and LM3697. >>> >>> It controls LEDs on Droid 4 >>> smartphone, including keyboard and screen backlights. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Milo Kim <milo.kim@xxxxxx> >>> [add LED subsystem support for keyboard backlight and rework DT >>> binding according to Rob Herrings feedback] >>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> [remove backlight subsystem support for now] >>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> >> >> So... this driver adds support for LM3532, LM3631, LM3632, LM3633, >> LM3695 and LM3697 (or it did when I signed it off). > > Yes I have to pull these out of the patch. > >> >> The rest of the series does not really bring any advantages (you claim >> it may add advantages in future). It takes code out of common driver >> and duplicates it. > > > I disagree. Honestly using that ideallogy all LED drivers should use the common code > as it is a wrapper around regmap and a few if statements. > > The 3632 adds the proper LED flash class support coupled with proper backlight support. > The 3633 adds the proper support for LV and HV LED support. > > Duplicate code that I could find is put in the common file. > This patch set adds the LED devices as all other LED devices are added in the LED directory. > >> >> Could we take this patch, get the basic support for LM3532, LM3631, >> LM3632, LM3633, LM3695 and LM3697, and then split out the drivers when >> we actually gain some advantage doing so (and also when the costs are >> clear)? > > We have debated this over and over and now we have 3 different implementations > available we need to collude on which one we want to support. > > Jacek I defer to you and Pavel since you are both LED maintainers. > > I can support the dedicated LED drivers but I cannot support the TI LMU only implementation. I uphold my previous opinion - please go ahead with moving the support for non-MFD devices from MFD subsystem to the LED subsystem. And yes - along with the bindings. This is semantically correct, and yet we don't have mainline users. Pavel - you will have to engage more people for your crusade to prevail. For now, to speed up the things, I am forced to ignore your NAK. So NAK to your NAK. Sorry. -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski
