[PATCH] backlight: ktz8866: Convert to i2c's .probe_new()
Jianhua Lu
lujianhua000 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 28 16:44:30 UTC 2023
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 05:16:13PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:14:09PM +0800, Jianhua Lu wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 02:32:39PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 08:36:28AM +0800, Jianhua Lu wrote:
> > > > I prefer that you pack this commit to the i2c-tree commit that drops
> > > > old .probe().
> > >
> > > That's fine for me. Can I interpret this as an Ack for this patch?
> >
> > Yes, but can't get my A-b directly, this patch should be ignored and
> > resend it within the i2c-tree patch series or split it to two patch
> > series.
>
> I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Up to know I though you want
> the patch as is go in together with the patch that modifies struct
> i2c_driver such that the PR has in two separate commits:
>
> i2c: Modify .probe() to not take an id parameter
> backlight: ktz8866: Convert to i2c's .probe_new()
This is case 1, the case 2 should be:
Patch 1: i2c: Modify .probe() to not take an id parameter
Patch 2: backlight: ktz8866: Convert to i2c's .probe_new()
'subsystem': 'i2c driver name': Convert to i2c's .probe_new()
...
>
> Did I understand that right?
>
> In that case an Ack by you would be fine and welcome.
>
> I don't want to squash the changes to the ktz8866 driver into the patch
> that modifies struct i2c_driver, as this needlessly clutters the commit,
> if it's that what you wanted. (There are more than 1000 i2c drivers and
> the others are not converted in a single lockstep, too.)
Do't squash this patch, I'd like you send a series patch instead of
a single patch.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list