[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57175621.4070307@schinagl.nl>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:12:49 +0200
From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
To: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
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
Hey,
On 20-04-16 11:17, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> 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 ;)
sure thing. I have read the docs quite a few times for using it directly
via i2c, but yeah I'll wait.
>
> Regards!
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists