On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Hi Lee.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 03:39:41PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2020, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Improve the documentation for backlight_device and adapt it to kernel-doc style.
The updated documentation is more strict on how locking is used. With the update neither update_lock nor ops_lock may be used outside the backlight core. This restriction was introduced to keep the locking simple by keeping it in the core. It was verified that this documents the current state by renaming update_lock => bl_update_lock and ops_lock => bl_ops_lock. The rename did not reveal any uses outside the backlight core. The rename is NOT part of this patch.
v3:
- Update changelog to explain locking details (Daniel)
v2:
- Add short intro to all fields (Daniel)
- Updated description of update_lock (Daniel)
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg sam@ravnborg.org Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov@gmail.com Cc: Lee Jones lee.jones@linaro.org Cc: Daniel Thompson daniel.thompson@linaro.org Cc: Jingoo Han jingoohan1@gmail.com
include/linux/backlight.h | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Some of these do not apply cleanly.
Please collect the *-bys already received, rebase and resubmit.
Will do. The patch-set is based on drm-misc-next. Are there another tree that I should use?
I don't have anything to do with that tree.
Either Backlight [0] or Next would be fine.
[0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/backlight.git/