On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:28:14AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > 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. Thanks for that. pwm_request() seems so old that my intuition about how device APIs in Linux work misled me and I completely missed that the consumption of pwm_id at the call site was the key to the source navigation here. > Who will pick up this patch? Should I resend for s/user/provider/? Lee Jones should hoover this up. Normally I only pick up backlight patches when Lee's on holiday ;-). No need to resend on my account. I interpreted the original description as "provider" anyway, I just didn't know how best to search for them. Daniel.
