On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 03:14:41PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 06:38:40PM +0930, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > > > I'm curious by what you mean with "it even seems to work". Since it > > > crashes when adjusting, what does it do that "works" ? > > > > As mentioned earlier, I have assumed that this means the backlight > > adjustment works correctly if the suggested patch has been applied. > > Yes. Great - thanks for confirming. > > Having > > thought about this some more I am unconvinced: if fext is NULL then > > call_fext_func() (with the check added) can't have any effect. The > > backlight adjustment might still work, but it's not due to this code path. > > It still calls set_lcd_level() which I assume is the thing that makes it > work. Yes, of course. Thanks, I was overthinking things. :-) Darren: this confirms that the idea of only registering FUJ02B1 if FUJ02E3 exists is no good: the S6120 (and probably others) needs FUJ02B1 but doesn't have a FUJ02E3. This means that at least for the purposes of addressing this regression, the null device check is the best option: either in bl_update_status() (Ville's original patch) or in call_fext_func() (as suggested by Michel, with a suggested patch in my post on the 24th). Regards jonathan
