[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us property
On 06/07/17 10:24, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 06/07/17 10:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> On Thu 2017-07-06 10:01:32, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
>>>>> From: huang lin <>
>>>>> Some panels (i.e. N116BGE-L41), in their power sequence specifications,
>>>>> request a delay between set the PWM signal and enable the backlight and
>>>>> between clear the PWM signal and disable the backlight. Add support for
>>>>> the new pwm-delay-us property to meet the timing.
>>>>> Note that this patch inverts current sequence. Before this patch the
>>>>> enable signal was set before the PWM signal and vice-versa on power off.
>>>>> I assumed that this sequence was wrong, at least it is on different panel
>>>>> datasheets that I checked, so I inverted the sequence to follow:
>>>>> On power on, set the PWM signal, wait, and set the LED_EN signal.
>>>>> On power off, clear the LED_EN signal, wait, and stop the PWM signal.
>>>> I think this should be two separate patches to make it easier to revert
>>>> the inverted sequence should it prove to regress on other panels.
>>> Don't make this overly complex. This is trivial. No need to split it
>>> into more patches.
>> Agree. IMHO getting the code that reads the (optional) new parameter correct
>> is the best way to manage risk of regression since in most cases the delay
>> will be skipped anyway.
> The potential regression that I'm referring to would be caused by
> inversing the sequence (GPIO enable -> PWM enable). That's completely
> unrelated to the delays introduced by this patch. Many boards use this
> driver and they've been running with the old sequence for many years.
> Granted, it's fairly unlikely to regress, but it's still a possibility.
> Given that both changes are logically separate, I think separate patches
> are totally appropriate. I also don't think that this would overly
> complicate things.

... and you are right on both counts!

Thanks for the detailed reply.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-06 11:58    [W:0.046 / U:5.968 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site