Re: [PATCH] backlight: pwm_bl: Drop support for legacy PWM probing

[Daniel Thompson]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:28:14AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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.

Thanks for that. pwm_request() seems so old that my intuition about
how device APIs in Linux work misled me and I completely missed that
the consumption of pwm_id at the call site was the key to the source
navigation here.


> Who will pick up this patch? Should I resend for s/user/provider/?

Lee Jones should hoover this up. Normally I only pick up backlight
patches when Lee's on holiday ;-).

No need to resend on my account. I interpreted the original
description as "provider" anyway, I just didn't know how best to
search for them.


Daniel.