[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36f33797-22d9-433c-9b5f-df8488191f3a@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:43:55 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@...rphone.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>
Cc: ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: pmi632: Add vibrator
On 4/18/24 12:03, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Thu Apr 18, 2024 at 12:01 PM CEST, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 18.04.2024 8:36 AM, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> Add a node for the vibrator module found inside the PMI632.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@...rphone.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
>>
>> On a side note, this is a totally configuration-free peripheral that doesn't do
>> anything crazy until manually configured.
>>
>> In the slow quest to be (hopefully) more sane about the defaults, should we keep
>> them enabled by default? Bjorn?
>
> But many (most?) devices don't have a vibration motor connected to
> PMI632, some (like devboards) don't have anything, and other phones have
> a separate chip that controls the vibration motor.
>
> Enabling this by default would mean all devices with PMI632 would get an
> input device for the vibrator that probably doesn't work?
Fair
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists