On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 16:57:01 +0300 Svyatoslav Ryhel <[email protected]> wrote:
> пт, 3 лип. 2026 р. о 14:03 Johan Hovold <[email protected]> пише: > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 11:00:25AM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > > > Since there are no users of this driver via platform data, remove the > > > platform data support and switch to using Device Tree bindings. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Ryhel <[email protected]> > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson (RISCstar) <[email protected]> #for > > > backlight > > > indio_dev->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev); > > > - iio_device_set_parent(indio_dev, pdev->dev.parent); > > > > Why are you reparenting the iio device here? > > > > Because every cell has its own binding now and using phandle to parent > when device has its own node is not a good practice. It is however a good point. So should at very least the ABI break should be called out in the patch description with a brief mention of what the path change actually is. > > > That's an ABI break. > > > > This driver does not have any active users in the kernel and no > activity for more then 2 years. ... > > > + u32 count = 0, reg, nchilds; > > > > Don't mix multiple declarations with initialisation like this. > > > > Checkpatch does not complain on style issue, hence this is not prohibited. Prohibition vs taste. I fully agree with John on this one! Those mixes are messy and hard to read. Checkpatch is a helpful tool but there are both rules and preferred style things it does not catch. Jonathan > > > > int ret; > > >
