[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190616154143.GA28583@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:41:43 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "ARM: dts: rockchip: set PWM delay backlight
settings for Minnie"
Hi!
> This reverts commit 288ceb85b505c19abe1895df068dda5ed20cf482.
>
> According to the commit message the AUO B101EAN01 panel on minnie
> requires a PWM delay of 200 ms, however this is not what the
> datasheet says. The datasheet mentions a *max* delay of 200 ms
> for T2 ("delay from LCDVDD to black video generation") and T3
> ("delay from LCDVDD to HPD high"), which aren't related to the
> PWM. The backlight power sequence does not specify min/max
> constraints for T15 (time from PWM on to BL enable) or T16
> (time from BL disable to PWM off).
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> ---
> Enric, if you think I misinterpreted the datasheet please holler!
Was this tested? Was previous patch tested?
Does patch being reverted actually break anything? If so, cc stable?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists