[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FEDD222.7050905@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:04:50 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
CC: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm-backlight: add regulator and GPIO support
On 06/29/2012 07:22 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Add support for an optional power regulator and enable/disable GPIO.
> This scheme is commonly used in embedded systems.
> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> - dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "got pwm for backlight\n");
> -
That seems like an unrelated change?
> @@ -231,6 +271,22 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (data->pwm_period_ns > 0)
> pwm_set_period(pb->pwm, data->pwm_period_ns);
>
> +
> + pb->power_reg = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "power");
There's an extra blank line there.
> + if (IS_ERR(pb->power_reg))
> + return PTR_ERR(pb->power_reg);
> +
> + pb->enable_gpio = -EINVAL;
> + if (data->use_enable_gpio) {
> + ret = devm_gpio_request_one(&pdev->dev, data->enable_gpio,
> + GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH, "backlight_enable");
> + if (ret)
> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
> + "error %d requesting control gpio\n", ret);
Shouldn't that be a hard error? If the user specified that some GPIO be
used, and the GPIO could not be requested, shouldn't the driver fail to
initialize?
> + else
> + pb->enable_gpio = data->enable_gpio;
Aside from that, this looks good to me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists