From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] backlight: pwm: reject legacy pwm request for device defined in dt Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:29:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20151013072941.GR17172@x1> References: <1444652943-19712-1-git-send-email-vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> <561BB2BC.9090907@atmel.com> <20151012153029.62f948d2@bbrezillon> <561BBB9F.6060808@mentor.com> <20151012160608.41f04553@bbrezillon> <561BC177.2050000@mentor.com> <20151012171931.3fb922d2@bbrezillon> <561BD282.70305@mentor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:37048 "EHLO mail-wi0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751914AbbJMH3p (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:29:45 -0400 Received: by wijq8 with SMTP id q8so17543656wij.0 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <561BD282.70305@mentor.com> Sender: linux-pwm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org To: Vladimir Zapolskiy Cc: Boris Brezillon , Robert Jarzmik , Nicolas Ferre , Thierry Reding , Jingoo Han , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > On 12.10.2015 18:19, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:19:35 +0300 > > Vladimir Zapolskiy 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 bala= nce > >> and I'm attempting to avoid interfering with it here :) > >=20 > > I keep thinking we should fix all platforms using the ->pwm_id pdat= a > > field to attach a PWM device to a PWM backlight instead of trying t= o > > guess when falling back to the legacy API is acceptable... > >=20 > >> > >>> 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) !=3D -EPROBE_DEFER && !pdev->dev.of_node) conditi= on 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. > >=20 > > ... but from a functional point of view your patch seems correct. >=20 > Sounds good, thank you for review. So should I take this patch, or not? --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:29:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] backlight: pwm: reject legacy pwm request for device defined in dt Message-Id: <20151013072941.GR17172@x1> List-Id: References: <1444652943-19712-1-git-send-email-vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> <561BB2BC.9090907@atmel.com> <20151012153029.62f948d2@bbrezillon> <561BBB9F.6060808@mentor.com> <20151012160608.41f04553@bbrezillon> <561BC177.2050000@mentor.com> <20151012171931.3fb922d2@bbrezillon> <561BD282.70305@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <561BD282.70305@mentor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Vladimir Zapolskiy Cc: Boris Brezillon , Robert Jarzmik , Nicolas Ferre , Thierry Reding , Jingoo Han , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > On 12.10.2015 18:19, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:19:35 +0300 > > Vladimir Zapolskiy 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 :) > >=20 > > 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... > >=20 > >> > >>> 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) !=3D -EPROBE_DEFER && !pdev->dev.of_node) condition I= MHO. > >> > >> 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. > >=20 > > ... but from a functional point of view your patch seems correct. >=20 > Sounds good, thank you for review. So should I take this patch, or not? --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog