From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Zapolskiy Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:45:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] backlight: pwm: reject legacy pwm request for device defined in dt Message-Id: <561F83D0.8040400@mentor.com> List-Id: References: <1444652943-19712-1-git-send-email-vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> <561BB2BC.9090907@atmel.com> <20151012153029.62f948d2@bbrezillon> <561BBB9F.6060808@mentor.com> <20151012160608.41f04553@bbrezillon> <561BC177.2050000@mentor.com> <20151012171931.3fb922d2@bbrezillon> <561BD282.70305@mentor.com> <20151013072941.GR17172@x1> In-Reply-To: <20151013072941.GR17172@x1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Lee Jones Cc: Boris Brezillon , Robert Jarzmik , Nicolas Ferre , Thierry Reding , Jingoo Han , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org 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 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