[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1446548924.3373.3.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 12:08:44 +0100
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To: YH Huang <yh.huang@...iatek.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm-backlight: fix the panel power sequence
Hi YH,
Am Dienstag, den 03.11.2015, 16:11 +0800 schrieb YH Huang:
> > The reasoning is that devices where there is no phandle link pointing to
> > the backlight (for example from a simple-panel node), we should keep the
> > current default behaviour (enable during probe).
>
> I have a little problem for the current default behaviour.
> Should we enable during probe?
Here I mean enabling the backlight (at the end of the probe function),
not enabling the GPIO already when requesting it.
> Before this patch ( http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/324690/ ),
> we disable "enable-gpio" in the probe function.
While before this patch the GPIO would be initialized in the disabled
state, the call to backlight_update_status at the end of the probe
function would still enable the backlight afterwards.
regards
Philipp
--
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