On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 02:32:39PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 08:36:28AM +0800, Jianhua Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 04:26:39PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > The probe function doesn't make use of the i2c_device_id * parameter so
> > > it can be trivially converted.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > there is an ongoing effort to convert all drivers to .probe_new to
> > > eventually drop .probe with the i2c_device_id parameter. This driver
> > > currently sits in next so wasn't on my radar before.
> > >
> > > My plan is to tackle that after the next merge window. So I ask you to
> > > either apply this patch during the next merge window or accept that it
> > > will go in via the i2c tree together with the patch that drops .probe().
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Uwe
> > >
> > > drivers/video/backlight/ktz8866.c | 5 ++---
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/ktz8866.c b/drivers/video/backlight/ktz8866.c
> > > index 97b723719e13..d38c13ad39c7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/ktz8866.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/ktz8866.c
> > > @@ -124,8 +124,7 @@ static void ktz8866_init(struct ktz8866 *ktz)
> > > ktz8866_write(ktz, LCD_BIAS_CFG1, LCD_BIAS_EN);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int ktz8866_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > > - const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> > > +static int ktz8866_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > {
> > > struct backlight_device *backlight_dev;
> > > struct backlight_properties props;
> > > @@ -197,7 +196,7 @@ static struct i2c_driver ktz8866_driver = {
> > > .name = "ktz8866",
> > > .of_match_table = ktz8866_match_table,
> > > },
> > > - .probe = ktz8866_probe,
> > > + .probe_new = ktz8866_probe,
> >
> > I think .probe_new() will be renamed to new .probe() again when there are
> > patches dropping old .probe().
>
> Right, the plan is to reintroduce .probe with the prototype that
> .probe_new has today.
>
> > I prefer that you pack this commit to the i2c-tree commit that drops
> > old .probe().
>
> That's fine for me. Can I interpret this as an Ack for this patch?
Yes, but can't get my A-b directly, this patch should be ignored and
resend it within the i2c-tree patch series or split it to two patch
series.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
