From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752686Ab1I2Xpw (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:45:52 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:43219 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751516Ab1I2Xpu (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:45:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: axel.lin@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1317327729.12332.121.camel@ted> References: <1316916753.5006.1.camel@phoenix> <20110929130049.a3b56e19.akpm00@gmail.com> <1317327729.12332.121.camel@ted> From: Axel Lin Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:45:29 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight: Rename corgibl_limit_intensity to genericbl_limit_intensity To: Richard Purdie Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Why does corgibl_limit_intensity/genericbl_limit_intensity exist? >> Nothing in the tree references it? > > It sounds like someone has removed the sharpsl battery driver which did > use this. If this hook isn't used, low battery with high screen > backlight values will reset the device as the wiring isn't up to the > current draw. > It is removed by commit 13a542475d1c62a12c77abfa83a790245598fc61 Author: Christoph Egger Date: Sun Jul 4 23:24:52 2010 +0800 [ARM] pxa: removing dead BACKLIGHT_CORGI BACKLIGHT_CORGI was later renamed to BACKLIGHT_GENERIC and has not been used since then. As it's now safe to completely transition to LCD_CORGI driver, which incorprates both the LCD and backlight device. Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger Signed-off-by: Eric Miao So, should we remove corgibl_limit_intensity/genericbl_limit_intensity since now it is not being used? > Richard > > >