Hi Bryan, On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Bryan Wu <cooloney@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Maybe we should go with this v2 patch initially to fix the regression >> and then we could consider introducing fwnode_get_name() in a future >> patch. > > I think V1 just touches leds-gpio.c and might be easier to merge as a > good fix. And then you can provide a patch to introduce > fwnode_get_name(). Yes, I agree. Just to make sure we are on the same page: there were two formal patches that I submitted: - v1: which did not take ACPI into account as pointed out by Grant - v2: The original one of this thread that does take ACPI into account Both of them only touch leds-gpio.c. The one that touches drivers/base/property.c was just a suggestion that I sent as a reply to v2. It was not a formal submission. I also don't know if such suggestion would work for ACPI, as ACPI is something I am not familiar with. It seems to me that you are calling my [PATCH v2] as v1 and the suggested approach that touches drivers/base/property.c as v2, so that's the confusion ;-). Sorry about that. Please let me know. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
