[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 2/5] leds: Add of_led_get() and led_put()
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:21:06PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> On 10/3/19 8:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> >> On 10/3/19 2:47 PM, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
> >>> On 03/10/2019 12:42, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:28:09AM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:

> > This mail has nothing relevant in the subject line and pages of quotes
> > before the question for me, it's kind of lucky I noticed it....

> Isn't it all about creating proper filters?

My point there is that there's nothing obvious in the mail that suggests
it should get past filters - just being CCed on a mail isn't super
reliable, people often get pulled in due to things like checkpatch or
someone copying a CC list from an earlier patch series where there were
things were relevant.

> >> I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to add support for fwnode
> >> parsing to regulator core. Or maybe it is either somehow supported
> >> or not supported on purpose?

> > Anything attempting to use the regulator DT bindings in ACPI has very
> > serious problems, ACPI has its own power model which isn't compatible
> > with that used in DT.

> We have a means for checking if fwnode refers to of_node:

> is_of_node(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)

> Couldn't it be employed for OF case?

Why would we want to do that? We'd continue to support only DT systems,
just with code that's less obviously DT only and would need to put
checks in. I'm not seeing an upside here.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-03 21:43    [W:0.123 / U:6.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site