[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yg82lyRCi3XJHCU2@ripper>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:03:03 -0800
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, quic_kalyant@...cinc.com,
quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com, quic_khsieh@...cinc.com,
quic_mkrishn@...cinc.com, quic_vproddut@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add support for eDP
panel on CRD
On Thu 17 Feb 17:03 PST 2022, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:58 AM Sankeerth Billakanti
> <quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > + backlight_3v3_regulator: backlight-3v3-regulator {
> > + compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > + regulator-name = "backlight_3v3_regulator";
> > +
> > + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > +
> > + gpio = <&pm8350c_gpios 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > + enable-active-high;
> > +
> > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > + pinctrl-0 = <&edp_bl_power>;
> > + };
>
> So I'm pretty sure that this is wrong and what you had on a previous
> patch was more correct. Specifically the PMIC's GPIO 7 truly _is_ an
> enable pin for the backlight. In the schematics I see it's named as
> "PMIC_EDP_BL_EN" and is essentially the same net as "EDP_BL_EN". This
> is distinct from the backlight _regulator_ that is named VREG_EDP_BP.
> I believe the VREG_EDP_BP is essentially sourced directly from
> PPVAR_SYS. That's how it works on herobrine and I believe that CRD is
> the same. You currently don't model ppvar_sys, but it's basically just
> a variable-voltage rail that could be provided somewhat directly from
> the battery or could be provided from Type C components. I believe
> that the panel backlight is designed to handle this fairly wide
> voltage range and it's done this way to get the best efficiency.
>
> So personally I'd prefer if you do something like herobrine and model
> PPVAR_SYS. Then the backlight can use ppvar_sys as its regulator and
> you can go back to providing this as an "enable" pin for the
> backlight.
>
> I know, technically it doesn't _really_ matter, but it's nice to model
> it more correctly.
While I've not seen your schematics, the proposal does look similar to
what I have on sc8180x, where there's a power rail, the BL_EN and a pwm
signal.
If that's the case I think representing BL_EN using the enable-gpios
property directly in the pwm-backlight node seems more appropriate (with
power-supply being the actual thing that powers the backlight).
If however gpio 7 is wired to something like the enable-pin on an actual
LDO the proposal here seems reasonable, but it seems unlikely that the
output of that would be named "backlight_3v3_regulator"?
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists