linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] leds: tps6131x: add support for Texas Instruments TPS6131X flash LED driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <597be0ca-ab3e-4313-8b35-57d2ce52f156@emfend.at>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 09:04:50 +0100
From: Matthias Fend <matthias.fend@...end.at>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
 Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bsp-development.geo@...ca-geosystems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] leds: tps6131x: add support for Texas Instruments
 TPS6131X flash LED driver

Hi Krzysztof,

Am 10.03.2025 um 08:46 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 28/02/2025 11:31, Matthias Fend wrote:
>> +	tps6131x->reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&client->dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>> +	ret = tps6131x_reset_chip(tps6131x);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret, "Failed to reset LED controller\n");
>> +
>> +	ret = tps6131x_init_chip(tps6131x);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret, "Failed to initialize LED controller\n");
>> +
>> +	ret = tps6131x_led_class_setup(tps6131x);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret, "Failed to setup led class\n");
>> +
>> +	ret = tps6131x_v4l2_setup(tps6131x);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret, "Failed to setup v4l2 flash\n");
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void tps6131x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>> +{
>> +	struct tps6131x *tps6131x = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>> +
>> +	v4l2_flash_release(tps6131x->v4l2_flash);
>> +
>> +	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&tps6131x->torch_refresh_work);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id of_tps6131x_leds_match[] = {
>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,tps61310" },
>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,tps61311" },
> 
> 
> No differences? So devices are fully compatible? Then it should be
> expressed in the binding with fallback. Or the binding description or
> commit msg should explain why they are not compatible.

Yes, from a software perspective both are identical.
The only difference I found between the two variants are different 
valley current limits. These are described in the bindings.

Best regards
  ~Matthias

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof