[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221117102814.vdgixgfq4pr77fly@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:28:14 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight: pwm_bl: Drop support for legacy PWM probing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:14:01AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 08:21:51AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > There is no in-tree user left which relies on legacy probing. So drop
> > support for it which removes another user of the deprecated
> > pwm_request() function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
>
> I have to take the "no in-tree user" on faith since I'm not familiar
> enough with PWM history to check that. However from a backlight
> point-of-view it looks like a nice tidy up:
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Probably "in-tree provider" would have been the better term. You can
convince you about that:
$ git grep -l platform_pwm_backlight_data | xargs grep pwm_id
That is, no machine used pwm_id to make the legacy lookup necessary.
Who will pick up this patch? Should I resend for s/user/provider/?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists