Hi Lee, Lee,On 13.10.2015 10:29, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > >> 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. > > So should I take this patch, or not? > Robert's testing shows no regression, please apply this change on top of Nicolas' one. -- 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
