On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:14:01AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 08:21:51AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > There is no in-tree user left which relies on legacy probing. So drop > > support for it which removes another user of the deprecated > > pwm_request() function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I have to take the "no in-tree user" on faith since I'm not familiar > enough with PWM history to check that. However from a backlight > point-of-view it looks like a nice tidy up: > Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> Probably "in-tree provider" would have been the better term. You can convince you about that: $ git grep -l platform_pwm_backlight_data | xargs grep pwm_id That is, no machine used pwm_id to make the legacy lookup necessary. Who will pick up this patch? Should I resend for s/user/provider/? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
