On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:19:35 +0300 Vladimir Zapolskiy <[email protected]> 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. Best Regards, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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
