From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267279AbUGNG0N (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:26:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267292AbUGNG0N (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:26:13 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:43679 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267279AbUGNG0M (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:26:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:11:38 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Andrew Zabolotny Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Backlight and LCD module patches [1] Message-ID: <20040714061138.GC11803@kroah.com> References: <20040617223514.2e129ce9.zap@homelink.ru> <20040617194739.GA15983@kroah.com> <20040618015504.661a50a9.zap@homelink.ru> <20040617220510.GA4122@kroah.com> <20040618095559.20763766.zap@homelink.ru> <20040624213452.GC2477@kroah.com> <20040627002152.20e2da7d.zap@homelink.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040627002152.20e2da7d.zap@homelink.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 12:21:52AM +0400, Andrew Zabolotny wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:34:52 -0700 > Greg KH wrote: > > > How about just having every l/b driver containing a pointer to the > > fbinfo that it is associated with? Isn't there some way you can keep > > the pointer that you need around within the place that you need to use > > it from eventually? > It's not a question of b/l driver needing the framebuffer driver; it's the > other way around: the framebuffer driver needs the b/l drivers (needs so > much that it can fail initialization in some cases if it doesn't find the > corresponding b/l device). Ok, then put a pointer in the fb driver to the backlight. And a pointer in the backlight to the fb. What's wrong with that? > If you'll ask why not embed the b/l controls directly into the framebuffer > drivers, the reason is simple: some video controllers just don't have a > predefined way of controlling the b/l, so in every implementation it's > different. Just do it for the ones that you do know, what's wrong with that? thanks, greg k-h