> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
>
> Yes, exactly. I still keep those 2 non-DT related patches in my tree
> and just removed that DT supporting patch.
>
> Please update that patch and posted again to linux-leds and DT
> maintainers as well.
I am really dont like any #ifdef in the source, but will do if this is only
one way to put this patch into the main tree.
---
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��W����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
