<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [CHV] Backlight init fails on Surface 3 if module load order is wrong"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96571#c16">Comment # 16</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [CHV] Backlight init fails on Surface 3 if module load order is wrong"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96571">bug 96571</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:viric@viric.name" title="viric@viric.name">viric@viric.name</a>
</span></b>
<pre>Ah! Clear. Maybe I was looking at a tree without the patches and got confused.
The patches clearly introduce the "pwm-backlight" for lpss.
Did you see that my kernel log of April shows:
[ 2.658013] pwm-byt-plat 80860F09:00: PWM device probed: pwm_num=0,
mmio_base=ffffc90001a46000 clk_khz=25000
[ 2.658223] pwm-byt-plat 80860F09:01: PWM device probed: pwm_num=1,
mmio_base=ffffc90001a48000 clk_khz=25000
and only at 15s i915 reports failure to own?
[ 15.203281] [drm:pwm_setup_backlight [i915]] *ERROR* Failed to own the pwm
chip: pwm_lpss
Doesn't this mean that the order is already correct?
(I will try the patches here provided though)</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>