Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210723091534.1730564-1-arnd@kernel.org> <a618e29a-e4b7-bda4-a3e0-7dfd67d64e92@infradead.org>
 <CACO55tvQoCnjQWRJhrJ+8TzY5MuDDSUSnwd5AU8G1qsQYCSCBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ddd0c7c-9bdc-9ea3-c635-f1d141d1e870@infradead.org> <CACO55ttjQO5kUeEA7opvGLAwT+a1t0vAguncKDhB4bdy96K7LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0YiAgTLptmPbK6vczkMi7F=tzE-Ae8GPFnBtbvQnoF0Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0YiAgTLptmPbK6vczkMi7F=tzE-Ae8GPFnBtbvQnoF0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Karol Herbst <kherbst@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:48:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CACO55ts5C6xodqstoeCvhpRpMOB=nTTPDnBfN_QT2GJe2F4wNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/kms/nv50-: fix build failure with CONFIG_BACKLIGHT=n
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        nouveau <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Nikola Cornij <nikola.cornij@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 8:40 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 6:34 PM Karol Herbst <kherbst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 6:31 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > On 7/23/21 8:15 AM, Karol Herbst wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 5:10 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > what's actually the use case of compiling with
> > > > CONFIG_DRM_NOUVEAU_BACKLIGHT=n anyway?
> > >
> > > Dunno. In this case it was just a randconfig. Still, it needs to be
> > > handled in some way - such as the other suggestion in this thread.
> > >
> >
> > sure, I was just curious if there was a specific use case or just
> > something random as you mentioned.
>
> I think this is purely done because of tradition. A long time ago, we had
> tiny framebuffer drivers and most PCs did not have backlights, so it
> made sense to leave this optional.
>
> This was probably just always carried over.
>
>          Arnd
>

okay. I think I will write a patch for nouveau then and send it out soonish