linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v25 03/16] dt: bindings: lp50xx: Introduce the lp50xx family of RGB drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c03ce8da-0895-2e1f-0a4c-2b3d9fae8d4d@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:34:04 +0200
From:   Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
Cc:     robh@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v25 03/16] dt: bindings: lp50xx: Introduce the lp50xx
 family of RGB drivers

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.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski