Hello Thierry, On 07.11.2014 16:57, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Thierry, > > On 07.11.2014 16:19, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >> Hi Thierry, >> >> On 07.11.2014 15:48, 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 <[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Thierry Reding <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Jingoo Han <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Bryan Wu <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Lee Jones <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 14 +++++++------- >>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> I don't really understand what this is supposed to do. The commit >>> message doesn't make a very good job of explaining it either. >>> >>> Can you describe in more detail what problem this fixes and why it >>> should be merged? >> >> thank you for review. >> >> As it is shown by the code this particular change rejects fallback to >> legacy PWM device request (which itself in turn is fixed in the next >> commit) for boards with supplied DTS, "pwm-backlight" compatible node >> and unregistered corresponding PWM device in that node. >> >> I don't know if there is a good enough reason to register PWM backlight >> device connected to some quite arbitrary PWM device, if no PWM device >> information is given in the "pwm-backlight" compatible node, so I think >> it makes sense to change the default policy. >> > > also please note that > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt > quite fairly describes "pwms" as a required property, but right now this > statement from the documentation is wrong, it is possible to register > pwm-backlight device driver (using notorious pwm_request() legacy API) > connected to some unspecified pwm device. > > I don't think that the current registration policy is correct, that's > why I propose to fix the logic instead of making a documentation update. >
have you had a chance to check the rationale of the change? If you accept it, should I make the commit message more verbose? -- With best wishes, Vladimir -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
