From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rpurdie@rpsys.net (Richard Purdie) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:44:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] leds-gpio: Change blink_set callback to be able to turn off blinking In-Reply-To: <1274872808.1931.310.camel@pasglop> References: <1274525695.1931.143.camel@pasglop> <1274871937.16229.79.camel@rex> <1274872808.1931.310.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: <1274874250.16229.87.camel@rex> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 21:20 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:05 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 20:54 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > The leds-gpio blink_set() callback follows the same prototype as the > > > main leds subsystem blink_set() one. > > > > > > The problem is that to stop blink, normally, a leds driver does it > > > in the brightness_set() callback when asked to set a new fixed value. > > > > > > However, with leds-gpio, the platform has no hook to do so, as this > > > later callback results in a standard GPIO manipulation. > > > > > > This changes the leds-gpio specific callback to take a new argument > > > that indicates whether the LED should be blinking or not and in what > > > state it should be set if not. We also update the dns323 platform > > > which seems to be the only user of this so far. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt > > > CC: Richard Purdie > > > CC: Grant Likely > > > --- > > > arch/arm/mach-orion5x/dns323-setup.c | 23 +++++++++++++---------- > > > drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > > include/linux/leds.h | 12 ++++++++---- > > > 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > > > Queued in the leds tree, thanks. > > You may need to fixup the dns323 bit if you apply before my dns323 rev C > patches ... but I suppose you figured that out already ;-) It should be > minor. Yes, I noticed just after I hit send and applied. I'd rather get the core change in sooner than later and the reject doesn't look serious so I'm assuming you can fix up the missing active_low bit for the new addition easily enough? Cheers, Richard