[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15b74129-111f-a43e-ad10-36722fe86e2e@somainline.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 18:50:45 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>,
Jami Kettunen <jami.kettunen@...ainline.org>,
Pavel Dubrova <pashadubrova@...il.com>,
Kiran Gunda <kgunda@...eaurora.org>,
Courtney Cavin <courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] backlight: qcom-wled: Fix off-by-one maximum with
default num_strings
[snipping to not have the entire thread here]
> I've no objections to seeing the DT updated. However I don't really see
> what benefit we get from breaking existing DTs in order to do so.
>
> "Cleaning up annoying legacy" is seldom a good reason to break existing
> DTs since, if we could break DTs whenever we choose, there would never
> be any annoying legacy to worry about. When conflicting properties
> result in uninterpretable DTs then a break may be justified but that is
> not the case here.
>
>
> Daniel.
The only true user of wled as of right now is Xperia Tone platform,
which does not yet
have display support upstream, so unless one classifies lighting up an
otherwise black display
a dealbreaker, I think it'd be fine to bend the rules this time.
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists