[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51078580.2000808@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:17:04 +0100
From: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
CC: Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pwm_backlight: Fix PWM levels support in non DT case
On 01/28/2013 10:01 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:39:53PM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> It is expected that board files would have:
>> static unsigned int bl_levels[] = { 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, };
>>
>> static struct platform_pwm_backlight_data bl_data = {
>> .levels = bl_levels,
>> .max_brightness = ARRAY_SIZE(bl_levels),
>> .dft_brightness = 4,
>> .pwm_period_ns = 7812500,
>> };
>>
>> In this case the max_brightness would be out of range in the levels array.
>> Decrement the received max_brightness in every case (DT or non DT) when the
>> levels has been provided.
>
> What's wrong with specifying .max_brightness = ARRAY_SIZE(bl_levels) - 1
> instead?
There is nothing wrong with that either but IMHO it is more natural for board
files to use just ARRAY_SIZE(bl_levels). In this way the handling of
data->max_brightness among non DT and DT booted kernel is more uniform in the
driver itself.
Right now all board files are using only the .max_brightness to specify the
maximum value, I could not find any users of .levels in the kernel.
--
Péter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists