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

[Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>]

Hi Lee,

Lee,On 13.10.2015 10:29, Lee Jones wrote:
> 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?
> 

Robert's testing shows no regression, please apply this change on top of
Nicolas' one.

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir