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: <06bb7ff7-0a41-f29f-ba2f-9cb041b5cdc7@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:28:02 -0500
From:   Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To:     Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
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

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