Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:01 +0000
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
To:     Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight: pwm_bl: Drop support for legacy PWM probing
Message-ID: <Y3YJaYx06Jzrs/Ej@maple.lan>
References: <20221117072151.3789691-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20221117072151.3789691-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 08:21:51AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> There is no in-tree user left which relies on legacy probing. So drop
> support for it which removes another user of the deprecated
> pwm_request() function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>

I have to take the "no in-tree user" on faith since I'm not familiar
enough with PWM history to check that. However from a backlight
point-of-view it looks like a nice tidy up:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>


Daniel.