[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180508171936.GK2259@tuxbook-pro>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 10:19:36 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: kgunda@...eaurora.org
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 4/5] backlight: qcom-wled: Add support for OVP
interrupt handling
On Tue 08 May 05:26 PDT 2018, kgunda@...eaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-05-07 22:51, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Thu 03 May 02:57 PDT 2018, Kiran Gunda wrote:
[..]
> > > @@ -220,7 +255,12 @@ static int wled_module_enable(struct wled
> > > *wled, int val)
> > > WLED3_CTRL_REG_MOD_EN,
> > > WLED3_CTRL_REG_MOD_EN_MASK,
> > > WLED3_CTRL_REG_MOD_EN_MASK);
> > > - return rc;
> > > + if (rc < 0)
> > > + return rc;
> > > +
> > > + schedule_delayed_work(&wled->ovp_work, WLED_SOFT_START_DLY_US);
> >
> > Do you really want to delay the work on disable?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to use a delay worker for the enablement and in
> > the disable case you cancel the work and just disable_irq() directly
> > here.
> >
> Sure. Will do it in the next series.
> > But more importantly, if this is only related to auto detection, do you
> > really want to enable/disable the ovp_irq after you have detected the
> > string configuration?
> >
> Ok. This is used for the genuine OVP detection and for the auto detection as
> well.
What is the expected outcome of detecting an OVP condition, outside auto
detection?
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists