Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] backlight: hx8357: Convert to agnostic GPIO API

[Daniel Thompson]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 07:07:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:54:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:53:40PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 7:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The of_gpio.h is going to be removed. In preparation of that convert
> > > > the driver to the agnostic API.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Thanks for fixing this Andy!
> > >
> > > > -#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LCD_HX8357)
> > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LCD_HX8357)
> > > >                 /*
> > > >                  * Himax LCD controllers used incorrectly named
> > > >                  * "gpios-reset" property and also specified wrong
> > > > @@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ static struct gpio_desc *of_find_gpio_rename(struct device_node *np,
> > > >                  */
> > > >                 const char *compatible;
> > > >         } gpios[] = {
> > > > -#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LCD_HX8357)
> > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LCD_HX8357)
> > > >                 /* Himax LCD controllers used "gpios-reset" */
> > > >                 { "reset",      "gpios-reset",  "himax,hx8357" },
> > > >                 { "reset",      "gpios-reset",  "himax,hx8369" },
> > >
> > > Eh what happened here .. it's even intuitively wrong.
> >
> > I believe it had to be something  like
> >
> > 	#if 0 && IS_ENABLED()
> >
> > to show that this change is for the future.
> > Currently it does something unneeded for the kernels with that option off.
> >
> > > I would add
> > > Fixes: fbbbcd177a27 ("gpiolib: of: add quirk for locating reset lines
> > > with legacy bindings")
> >
> > I'm not sure. But it's fine, I can add it. Just want to double confirm
> > you really want this Fixes tag.
> >
> > > It wasn't used until now it seems so not a regression and no
> > > need for a separate patch.
> >
> > Exactly why I'm not sure about the tag :-)
> >
> > > Other than that it looks correct.
> > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thank you!
>
> Lee, is anything I can do here to move this forward?

Backlight code looks OK to me (although I might regard the Fixes:
discussion as unresolved)there is an unresolved):
Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>


Daniel.