| Message ID | 20221117072151.3789691-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere |
| Headers | show |
| Series | backlight: pwm_bl: Drop support for legacy PWM probing | expand |
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@pengutronix.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@linaro.org> Daniel.
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@pengutronix.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@linaro.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
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@pengutronix.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@linaro.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. 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.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, 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@pengutronix.de> > --- > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 12 ------------ > include/linux/pwm_backlight.h | 1 - > 2 files changed, 13 deletions(-) Applied, thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c index c0523a0269ee..d0b22158cd70 100644 --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c @@ -28,7 +28,6 @@ struct pwm_bl_data { struct regulator *power_supply; struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio; unsigned int scale; - bool legacy; unsigned int post_pwm_on_delay; unsigned int pwm_off_delay; int (*notify)(struct device *, @@ -455,7 +454,6 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct platform_pwm_backlight_data defdata; struct backlight_properties props; struct backlight_device *bl; - struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node; struct pwm_bl_data *pb; struct pwm_state state; unsigned int i; @@ -506,12 +504,6 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) } pb->pwm = devm_pwm_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); - if (IS_ERR(pb->pwm) && PTR_ERR(pb->pwm) != -EPROBE_DEFER && !node) { - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to request PWM, trying legacy API\n"); - pb->legacy = true; - pb->pwm = pwm_request(data->pwm_id, "pwm-backlight"); - } - if (IS_ERR(pb->pwm)) { ret = PTR_ERR(pb->pwm); if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) @@ -604,8 +596,6 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (IS_ERR(bl)) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register backlight\n"); ret = PTR_ERR(bl); - if (pb->legacy) - pwm_free(pb->pwm); goto err_alloc; } @@ -639,8 +629,6 @@ static int pwm_backlight_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) if (pb->exit) pb->exit(&pdev->dev); - if (pb->legacy) - pwm_free(pb->pwm); return 0; } diff --git a/include/linux/pwm_backlight.h b/include/linux/pwm_backlight.h index 06086cb93b6f..cdd2ac366bc7 100644 --- a/include/linux/pwm_backlight.h +++ b/include/linux/pwm_backlight.h @@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ #include <linux/backlight.h> struct platform_pwm_backlight_data { - int pwm_id; unsigned int max_brightness; unsigned int dft_brightness; unsigned int lth_brightness;
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@pengutronix.de> --- drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 12 ------------ include/linux/pwm_backlight.h | 1 - 2 files changed, 13 deletions(-) base-commit: 9abf2313adc1ca1b6180c508c25f22f9395cc780