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 <[email protected]> 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 :) > > > > 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... > > > >> > >>> 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) != -EPROBE_DEFER && !pdev->dev.of_node) condition 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. > > > > ... but from a functional point of view your patch seems correct. > > Sounds good, thank you for review.
So should I take this patch, or not? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
