> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:49:54 -0700, Bryan Wu <cooloney@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> Is this patch good for merging?
> >>
> >> In Alex's one patch to add device tree supporting for a leds driver,
> >> we got building errors due to miss definitions of some of_xxx api
> >> functions.
> >>
> >> It looks obviously to me that we need to fix this in device tree core
> >> instead put #ifdef CONFIG_OF everywhere.
> >
> > Actually, the reason those things aren't universally defined is to catch
> > exactly what it caught. The "leds-mc13783: Add devicetree support" patch
> > interleaves DT and non-DT parsing which isn't generally a good idea. The
> > DT parsing code should be shuffled off into a separate function and/or
> > contained with "if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) {}".
> >
>
> Agree, reasonable! I will remove this patch from my tree firstly.
>
> Alex, could you please update your patch with Grant's feedback?
As far I understand you mean only the last part of patch. Where DT support
is introduced. Is not it?
---
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��W����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
