| Message ID | 1432565608-26036-16-git-send-email-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 25 May 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > When looking up a backlight device through its DT node, ensure that the > corresponding device has been registered. > > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> > --- > drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) Looks reasonable. Until anyone screams at me, applied thanks. > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c b/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c > index bddc8b1..fe7833b 100644 > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > #include <linux/device.h> > #include <linux/backlight.h> > #include <linux/notifier.h> > +#include <linux/of_platform.h> > #include <linux/ctype.h> > #include <linux/err.h> > #include <linux/fb.h> > @@ -559,6 +560,8 @@ struct backlight_device *of_find_backlight_by_node(struct device_node *node) > { > struct device *dev; > > + of_platform_device_ensure(node); > + > dev = class_find_device(backlight_class, NULL, node, of_parent_match); > > return dev ? to_backlight_device(dev) : NULL;
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 08:18:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > > When looking up a backlight device through its DT node, ensure that the > > corresponding device has been registered. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> > > --- > > drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > Looks reasonable. > > Until anyone screams at me, applied thanks. The compiler will scream at you when it realizes that of_platform_device_ensure() doesn't exist in your kernel... Sascha
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 08:18:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 25 May 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > > > > When looking up a backlight device through its DT node, ensure that the > > > corresponding device has been registered. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > Looks reasonable. > > > > Until anyone screams at me, applied thanks. > > The compiler will scream at you when it realizes that > of_platform_device_ensure() doesn't exist in your kernel... Yup, indeed it did. I assumed this was *only* enabling subsystems and that the framework/API was already accepted. So the advice I'd give to Tomeu when sending full enablement patch-sets i.e. ones which provide the framework/API *and* enable subsystems in the same set, is to send the entire set to everyone, so we can see what the aim of the set is and how to deal with it.
On 26 May 2015 at 10:39, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 08:18:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: >> > On Mon, 25 May 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> > >> > > When looking up a backlight device through its DT node, ensure that the >> > > corresponding device has been registered. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> >> > > --- >> > > drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c | 3 +++ >> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> > >> > Looks reasonable. >> > >> > Until anyone screams at me, applied thanks. >> >> The compiler will scream at you when it realizes that >> of_platform_device_ensure() doesn't exist in your kernel... > > Yup, indeed it did. > > I assumed this was *only* enabling subsystems and that the > framework/API was already accepted. > > So the advice I'd give to Tomeu when sending full enablement > patch-sets i.e. ones which provide the framework/API *and* enable > subsystems in the same set, is to send the entire set to everyone, so > we can see what the aim of the set is and how to deal with it. Yeah, but get_maintainer.pl outputs 33 maintainer addresses, plus 1 reviewer plus 14 mailing lists, so to avoid rejects because of too many recipients I went with the advice in [0] and sent each patch to their maintainers and list(s) and the cover letter to all lists. Also sent the whole series to lakml to make sure that it's at least indexed there. Any advice on what to do with series that span so many subsystems? Thanks, Tomeu [0] http://lwn.net/Articles/585782/ > -- > Lee Jones > Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead > Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs > Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 26 May 2015 at 10:39, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 26 May 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 08:18:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > >> > On Mon, 25 May 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> > > >> > > When looking up a backlight device through its DT node, ensure that the > >> > > corresponding device has been registered. > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> > >> > > --- > >> > > drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c | 3 +++ > >> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > > >> > Looks reasonable. > >> > > >> > Until anyone screams at me, applied thanks. > >> > >> The compiler will scream at you when it realizes that > >> of_platform_device_ensure() doesn't exist in your kernel... > > > > Yup, indeed it did. > > > > I assumed this was *only* enabling subsystems and that the > > framework/API was already accepted. > > > > So the advice I'd give to Tomeu when sending full enablement > > patch-sets i.e. ones which provide the framework/API *and* enable > > subsystems in the same set, is to send the entire set to everyone, so > > we can see what the aim of the set is and how to deal with it. > > Yeah, but get_maintainer.pl outputs 33 maintainer addresses, plus 1 > reviewer plus 14 mailing lists, so to avoid rejects because of too > many recipients I went with the advice in [0] and sent each patch to > their maintainers and list(s) and the cover letter to all lists. Also > sent the whole series to lakml to make sure that it's at least indexed > there. Mails aren't usually rejected because they have too many recipients, rather they require approval. This isn't a blocker, especially for patch-sets like this. > Any advice on what to do with series that span so many subsystems? I would either ensure everyone is informed, split into two choices; either CC everyone on every patch, or at least everyone on the cover-letter and the core API changes. The other method is to have the API changes accepted first, then once accepted send out the subsystem changes [FWIW: this is the method I (wrongly) assumed you used].
diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c b/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c index bddc8b1..fe7833b 100644 --- a/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ #include <linux/device.h> #include <linux/backlight.h> #include <linux/notifier.h> +#include <linux/of_platform.h> #include <linux/ctype.h> #include <linux/err.h> #include <linux/fb.h> @@ -559,6 +560,8 @@ struct backlight_device *of_find_backlight_by_node(struct device_node *node) { struct device *dev; + of_platform_device_ensure(node); + dev = class_find_device(backlight_class, NULL, node, of_parent_match); return dev ? to_backlight_device(dev) : NULL;
When looking up a backlight device through its DT node, ensure that the corresponding device has been registered. Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> --- drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)