[Outreachy kernel] [PATCH v13 2/3] drm/tinydrm: Move tinydrm_of_find_backlight to backlight.c

[Daniel Thompson]

On 24/10/17 13:16, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:35:42AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 20/10/17 18:20, Sean Paul wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Meghana Madhyastha
>>> <meghana.madhyastha at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 02:26:00PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Noralf Trønnes <noralf at tronnes.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Den 13.10.2017 22.25, skrev Sean Paul:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:11:43PM +0530, Meghana Madhyastha wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rename tinydrm_of_find_backlight to backlight_get and move it
>>>>>>>> to linux/backlight.c so that it can be used by other drivers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [apologies if this has been brought up in previous versions, I haven't
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> following closely]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think "backlight_get" is a good name for this function. How about
>>>>>>> of_find_backlight_by_name (since there's already
>>>>>>> of_find_backlight_by_node)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I came up with that name modelled after gpiod_get() and gpiod_put() and I
>>>>>> deliberately kept the of_ part out of the name like the gpio functions.
>>>>>> gpiod_get() checks OF, ACPI and platform for gpios and calling it
>>>>>> backlight_get() would keep the door open for other ways of connecting
>>>>>> backlight devices in the future, other than Device Tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the background, Noralf! Apologies for stepping on top of
>>>>> your previous reviews.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think of_find_backlight() would be better than *_by_name(), since
>>>>>> 'backlight' is the common DT property name, so it wouldn't make much sense
>>>>>> to require every caller to pass in the same name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> of_find_backlight() sounds like a good compromise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean
>>>>
>>>> Are there any changes that need to be made to this patchset now ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I still prefer s/backlight_get/of_find_backlight/ and it seems Noralf
>>> is Ok with that too. I think there were also review comments
>>> surrounding the _put function?
>>
>> How did this conversation result in a new patchset with the name changed?
>>
>> Did I miss something.
>>
> 
> I asked the name be changed to of_find_backlight and that backlight_put be
> removed.

Quite so.

Sorry, I was filtering my mail way too fast and misread your comment as 
"I still prefer backlight_get" :-O
That was my problem with reading, not your problem with writing.


Daniel.