[PATCH] powerpc: Update Warp to use leds-gpio driver

Grant Likely grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Sat Apr 18 15:07:31 EST 2009

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Sean MacLennan
<smaclennan at pikatech.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
> "Trent Piepho" <xyzzy at speakeasy.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Sean MacLennan wrote:
>> > Now that leds-gpio is a proper OF platform driver, the Warp can use
>> > the leds-gpio driver rather than the old out-of-kernel driver.
>> >
>> > One side-effect is the leds-gpio driver always turns the leds off
>> > while the old driver left them alone. So we have to set them back to
>> > the correct settings.
>> Originally, I had the OF bindings support this feature, see
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/749094
>> Maybe this would be a better way to do it?  It avoids the glitch in
>> the leds, is less code overall, and can be use by other devices that
>> might want this same behavior.
> Yes, that is a cleaner way to handle the LEDs. Do you know why this
> patch wasn't accepted at the time? A quick google shows that Grant
> Likely acked it.
> The patch will no longer apply since default state does not exist.

It got left here:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 04:58 -0800, Trent Piepho wrote:
>> It doesn't seem right to merge someone's patches together, make a very
>> small change, and then no longer credit them as the author.  Seems like it
>> defeats the purpose of the SOB lines for tracing the train of custody too.
>> If someone looks to see where the code came from, it will look like you
>> wrote it.  Maybe Freescale will say Intel stole our code?  Without the SOB,
>> what record is there in git that Freescale gave permission to put the code
>> in the kernel?
>> I also put some significant effort into writing informative commit
>> messages, which have been lost.  Along with Grant's acks for my patches.
> It also doesn't make sense to make three changes adding different
> interfaces and rearranging the same section of code three different
> times. I'm dropping the patch, please send me a merged version of those
> patches with a commit message you're happy with. If you want Acked-by
> lines, we'll have to wait for them on the new patch as I'm going to do
> this exactly by the book regardless of time pressures now. Please
> indicate who you want Ack-ed by lines from so I know who to wait for.
> Also, you'd better exclude the suspend/resume change and credit me for
> the bitfield change, just to be 100% sure this is all legally accurate.


Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list