Re: [PATCH v2] backlight: pwm: reject legacy pwm request for device defined in dt

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

> On 12.10.2015 18:19, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:19:35 +0300
> > Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thierry's patch makes sure that EPROBE_DEFER is not returned when the
> >>> PWM device definition is not found using in the PWM lookup tables or
> >>> the DT definition,
> >>
> >> This is okay, but I'm interested in proper handling of cases other than
> >> EPROBE_DEFER. EPROBE_DEFER and the related issues are on your balance
> >> and I'm attempting to avoid interfering with it here :)
> > 
> > I keep thinking we should fix all platforms using the ->pwm_id pdata
> > field to attach a PWM device to a PWM backlight instead of trying to
> > guess when falling back to the legacy API is acceptable...
> > 
> >>
> >>> and in this case the pwm_bl code will fallback to
> >>> the legacy PWM API, which AFAICT is what you're trying to solve.
> >>
> >> Fallback must happen exclusively under (IS_ERR(pb->pwm) &&
> >> PTR_ERR(pb->pwm) != -EPROBE_DEFER && !pdev->dev.of_node) condition IMHO.
> >>
> >> Before EPROBE_DEFER appeared on the scene the condition was
> >> (IS_ERR(pb->pwm) && !pdev->dev.of_node).
> >>
> >> So, the question is if my change requires any updates or not from your
> >> point of view.
> > 
> > ... but from a functional point of view your patch seems correct.
> 
> Sounds good, thank you for review.

So should I take this patch, or not?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog