[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPybu_2WXdGck_FtW2MQEiPU-oXA6yz8W3jGkUnABfbir82Jdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:17:38 +0200
From: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
To: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
Cc: Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 0/6] leds: pca9653x: support inverted outputs and cleanups
Hello again
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl> wrote:
> The devil is in the details :)
:)
>>
>> Saving mode2 sounds like a good compromise then.
>>
>> But I still believe that we should limit the lock to ledout. No matter
>> what we do, we cannot have two leds blinking at different frequencies
>> on the same chip.
>
> So to save a mutex a little bit, we take the risk that nobody else enables
> the blink or if they do, enable it in the same way?
> If it saves so much, then I guess its worth the risk I suppose?
Give me a day to go through the chip doc and see if I can find a good
compromise, that at least warranties that the leds that are enable
stay enabled ;)
Regards!
--
Ricardo Ribalda
Powered by blists - more mailing lists