On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I got it. Actually we are talking about the same patch in the email [PATCH v2]. So I agree to merge this fix firstly and then introduce a new fwnode_get_name(). If it's OK, I will merge this patch with Grant's Ack. Thanks, -Bryan -- 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
