On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 03:57:57PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On 12.06.2015 14:31, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 04:46:25PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > >> Platform PWM backlight data provided by board's device tree should be > >> complete enough to successfully request a pwm device using pwm_get() API. > >> > >> Based on initial implementation done by Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov. > >> > >> Reported-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry_eremin@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 14 +++++++------- > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > This fell off my radar, but I think it's good. I used to have a local > > patch somewhere that solved the same problem by initializing the pwm_id > > field of platform_pwm_backlight_data to -1 in pwm_backlight_parse_dt(), > > but I like this variant better because it's more explicit and doesn't > > even attempt to request using the legacy API (which will inevitably fail > > in the DT case anyway). > > > > Vladimir, do you think you'd have the time to rebase this patch on top > > of something recent and perhaps extend the commit message with some of > > the arguments that you brought forth in this thread? Specifically it'd > > be useful to mention that this enforces the DT binding and fixes a real > > bug where the legacy path would try to request a PWM that's not > > necessarily the right one. > > sure, no problem, I'll find time to rebase on top of Lee's > backlight/for-backlight-next and resend the change this weekend. > > Thank you for reviewing :) I'll be away for two weeks, but feel free to add my: Acked-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
pgpFDpT7YiOdG.pgp
Description: PGP signature