From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE80FC433DF for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:28:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CADF4206DC for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:28:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="dY6XwrVt" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729593AbgFDQ2N (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 12:28:13 -0400 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:51464 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729587AbgFDQ2N (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 12:28:13 -0400 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 054GS89Q024981; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:28:08 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1591288088; bh=DbIrDosprZ370hynC/ymJXxIAmAhJt0icaNJ5m1eOQA=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=dY6XwrVtZSv+9Lsb308s6ra0dpmeHoiygHRlNpcF4bGk8PQhTFrhaEUjkERoztxMh JDSqDS2AIJ4aU3zJfFoG/lopTh9DA+xQ7cI/lyBFl6ZptGQO6VPYnxM1tghxK6Gyq6 WLhHV4UmbuWDJCs8kNPZ45ORMFnTxgbUg1Qw5GhU= Received: from DLEE115.ent.ti.com (dlee115.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.26]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 054GS84Z057086 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:28:08 -0500 Received: from DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) by DLEE115.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:28:07 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:28:07 -0500 Received: from [10.250.52.63] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 054GS7rp108958; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:28:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v25 03/16] dt: bindings: lp50xx: Introduce the lp50xx family of RGB drivers To: Jacek Anaszewski , Pavel Machek CC: , , , References: <20200526164652.2331-1-dmurphy@ti.com> <20200526164652.2331-4-dmurphy@ti.com> <20200527135848.GB5011@amd> <20200531190625.GA30537@duo.ucw.cz> From: Dan Murphy Message-ID: <06bb7ff7-0a41-f29f-ba2f-9cb041b5cdc7@ti.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:28:02 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-leds-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org Jacek On 6/1/20 4:34 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > Hi Pavel and Dan, > > On 5/31/20 9:06 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> Hi! >> >>>>> +          There can only be one instance of the ti,led-bank >>>>> +          property for each device node.  This is a required node >>>>> is the LED >>>>> +          modules are to be backed. >>>> I don't understand the second sentence. Pretty sure it is not valid >>>> english. >>> >>> >>> If I make these changes is this still viable for 5.8 or would you >>> then go >>> into 5.9? >> >> It really depends if we get -rc8 or not, and if you'll need to do any >> changes to C code or not... > > I think that we need to simmer such a big extension of the LED > subsystem for a whole cycle in linux-next, especially taking into > account addition of new sysfs interface, that is bit quirky. > > Effectively 5.8 seems to not have been viable since few weeks. > After thinking about this for a while I would actually think to have this in 5.9. Either 5.7 or 5.8 will be the 2020 LTS and such a new interface would be best suited for intermediate stable releases that get EOL'd faster. This way we don't have to back port bug fixes for 2 years. Dan