[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] i915: Add native backlight control

[Sedat Dilek]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:36:54 +0100 Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> ( Original posting from [1] )
>>
>> I have the backlight-type patchset for months in my patch-series (and
>> maintained them if necessary against daily linux-next).
>> Also the last series from 14-Jan-2011 (see 1-5 patch from [2] and the
>> following ones at dri-devel ML).
>>
>> If you couldn't find the updated v2 radeon-backlight-type patch, here
>> the extract from my patch-series:
>> ...
>> # Patch from <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/491351/>
>> + backlight-type/v2-drm-radeon-kms-Expose-backlight-class-device-for-legacy-LVDS-encoder.patch
>> ...
>>
>> I can only speak for the radeon(-KMS) part with
>> CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE=y set and against linux-next: It worked,
>> it works.
>>
>> I am a bit angry that someone of the "big 5" gets immediately an
>> answer where mine is ignored [3].
>
> Well, who were they sent to?
>
> If it was dri-devel then perhaps the people there felt it was
> inappropriate to their tree, or they were all busy fixing
> 100000000000000 regressions.
>
> If it was Richard then he's been distracted by other things for some
> time, which is why I recently started handling backlight and leds
> patches.
>
> If it was me then kick me, but I don't think it was.
>
> In general, if you think that patches aren't getting attention then let
> me know and send them to me - harassing people for you is part of my
> job description.
>
>> So dear Mr. AKPM, if you can standstill for a few moments to answer
>> only one of my questions, through which kernel-tree will this patchset
>> walk trough?
>
> leds and backlight patches are presently getting merged into my tree
> and I'm sending them into Linus.  I make sure that Richard sees them
> all and when he finds time he helps review them for us.
>
> They should turn up in linux-next too - we're working on that.
>
>
> This particular patch series is theoretically a bit late for 2.6.38,
> but if anyone thinks that's a wrong decision, feel free to explain why.
>
>

Short answer:
No need to kick anybody.
As I said I am using the patchset for a long time, so I am just fine
seeing them in 2.6.38.
( Feel free to add a Tested-by... to all five patches. )

- Sedat -