Hi Sam, On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 21:29:43 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 08:28:17PM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 19:26:23 +0100, Sam Ravnborg via B4 Submission > > Endpoint wrote: > > > > > From: Sam Ravnborg > > > > > > Avoiding direct access to backlight_properties.props. > > > > > > Access to the deprecated props.fb_blank replaced by > > > backlight_is_blank(). Access to props.power is dropped - it was only > > > used for debug. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg > > > Cc: Stephen Kitt > > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > Cc: Daniel Thompson > > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko > > > Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ssd1351.c | 9 +++------ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ssd1351.c > > > b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ssd1351.c index b8d55aa8c5c7..995fbd2f3dc6 > > > 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ssd1351.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ssd1351.c > > > @@ -190,15 +190,12 @@ static struct fbtft_display display = { > > > static int update_onboard_backlight(struct backlight_device *bd) > > > { > > > struct fbtft_par *par = bl_get_data(bd); > > > - bool on; > > > + bool blank = backlight_is_blank(bd); > > > > > > - fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BACKLIGHT, par, > > > - "%s: power=%d, fb_blank=%d\n", > > > - __func__, bd->props.power, bd->props.fb_blank); > > > + fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BACKLIGHT, par, "%s: blank=%d\n", __func__, > > > blank); > > > - on = !backlight_is_blank(bd); > > > /* Onboard backlight connected to GPIO0 on SSD1351, GPIO1 > > > unused */ > > > - write_reg(par, 0xB5, on ? 0x03 : 0x02); > > > + write_reg(par, 0xB5, !blank ? 0x03 : 0x02); > > > > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > -- > > > 2.34.1 > > > > For debugging purposes here, would there be any point in logging > > props.state? As in > > > > fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BACKLIGHT, par, > > - "%s: power=%d, fb_blank=%d\n", > > - __func__, bd->props.power, bd->props.fb_blank); > > + "%s: power=%d, state=%u\n", > > + __func__, bd->props.power, bd->props.state); > > Thanks for the suggestion - and the reviews! > > I was tempted to just remove the debugging. > If we require debugging, then this could be added in the backlight core, > thus everyone would benefit from it. > > The solution above avoid any direct use of backlight_properties > which I consider a layer violation outside the backlight core. > (We cannot avoid it today with the current interface - but we can > minimize it). Ah yes, ideally backlight_properties should be viewed as an opaque structure, that makes sense. Regards, Stephen