From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEEB569D10; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:34:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708526057; cv=none; b=HTWfi0ap11HIXY5Z86xy1uBeXtBhi9L8Wf+fmUMKMYJVz4Dauws7OkPB1OkMP1xfg6eeoGPpiVJ7hWQPveRRFaK08sZ2B/ixWt4wMelg8wUXIWfGJAvr1dyReTMttcdipIZwDzuMZqZ5B5Kcrz0thmBOo/tJpxLPV1Eec6yyEBY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708526057; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5qghrkmzaw0d79bz1F1aq4Vy3+pNS+s51gwkQO2jOCc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ixiXF/iP2zXO0/vDK2J+LduLzOOpoFCLL26w58Vm4dJgY129jIMPYR9SMuSrYaLDHM71mlRZ4dUMhsBGL+Pna15mH8YKoO2w67Pf+v3g9Xt0Q2/1Qo4CB+X7XHRE5stxe4z4ZZuTjG3WcasCoq5nh2+Lk2hUIFSdLz2eyrbBx8g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10990"; a="2550066" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,175,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="2550066" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orvoesa111.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2024 06:34:15 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10990"; a="913315045" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,175,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="913315045" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2024 06:34:12 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rcnfk-00000006N6c-41vp; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:34:08 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:34:08 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Thomas Zimmermann Cc: lee@kernel.org, daniel.thompson@linaro.org, jingoohan1@gmail.com, deller@gmx.de, robin@protonic.nl, javierm@redhat.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] backlight: Match backlight device against struct fb_info.bl_dev Message-ID: References: <20240221094324.27436-1-tzimmermann@suse.de> <20240221094324.27436-2-tzimmermann@suse.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240221094324.27436-2-tzimmermann@suse.de> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:41:28AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Framebuffer drivers for devices with dedicated backlight are supposed > to set struct fb_info.bl_dev to the backlight's respective device. Use > the value to match backlight and framebuffer in the backlight core code. ... > if (!bd->ops) > goto out; > - if (bd->ops->check_fb && !bd->ops->check_fb(bd, evdata->info)) > + else if (bd->ops->check_fb && !bd->ops->check_fb(bd, info)) What's the point of adding redundant 'else'? > goto out; > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FB_BACKLIGHT) > + else if (info->bl_dev && info->bl_dev != bd) Ditto. > + goto out; > +#endif -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko