On 12.10.2015 18:19, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:19:35 +0300 > Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Thierry's patch makes sure that EPROBE_DEFER is not returned when the >>> PWM device definition is not found using in the PWM lookup tables or >>> the DT definition, >> >> This is okay, but I'm interested in proper handling of cases other than >> EPROBE_DEFER. EPROBE_DEFER and the related issues are on your balance >> and I'm attempting to avoid interfering with it here :) > > I keep thinking we should fix all platforms using the ->pwm_id pdata > field to attach a PWM device to a PWM backlight instead of trying to > guess when falling back to the legacy API is acceptable... > >> >>> and in this case the pwm_bl code will fallback to >>> the legacy PWM API, which AFAICT is what you're trying to solve. >> >> Fallback must happen exclusively under (IS_ERR(pb->pwm) && >> PTR_ERR(pb->pwm) != -EPROBE_DEFER && !pdev->dev.of_node) condition IMHO. >> >> Before EPROBE_DEFER appeared on the scene the condition was >> (IS_ERR(pb->pwm) && !pdev->dev.of_node). >> >> So, the question is if my change requires any updates or not from your >> point of view. > > ... but from a functional point of view your patch seems correct. Sounds good, thank you for review. Robert, because you found a regression in the related area of code on a platform, which uses legacy PWM API, could you please confirm that three patches applied in a row don't break anything for you, the changes are: * Nicolas' 68feaca0b1 ("backlight: pwm: Handle EPROBE_DEFER while requesting the PWM") * Thierry' https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/5/319 * and this one is the last in the series: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.pwm/2813 -- With best wishes, Vladimir -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html