Re: [PATCH 1/2] backlight: pwm: don't call legacy pwm request for device defined in dt

[Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>]

Hi Thierry,

On 12.06.2015 14:31, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 04:46:25PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> Platform PWM backlight data provided by board's device tree should be
>> complete enough to successfully request a pwm device using pwm_get() API.
>>
>> Based on initial implementation done by Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov.
>>
>> Reported-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry_eremin@mentor.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>
>> Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>
>> Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c |   14 +++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> This fell off my radar, but I think it's good. I used to have a local
> patch somewhere that solved the same problem by initializing the pwm_id
> field of platform_pwm_backlight_data to -1 in pwm_backlight_parse_dt(),
> but I like this variant better because it's more explicit and doesn't
> even attempt to request using the legacy API (which will inevitably fail
> in the DT case anyway).
> 
> Vladimir, do you think you'd have the time to rebase this patch on top
> of something recent and perhaps extend the commit message with some of
> the arguments that you brought forth in this thread? Specifically it'd
> be useful to mention that this enforces the DT binding and fixes a real
> bug where the legacy path would try to request a PWM that's not
> necessarily the right one.

sure, no problem, I'll find time to rebase on top of Lee's
backlight/for-backlight-next and resend the change this weekend.

Thank you for reviewing :)

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir