From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.mainlining.org (mail.mainlining.org [5.75.144.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 715A2221DAE; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 15:45:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=5.75.144.95 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767973521; cv=none; b=gj/2YyiE6i9RPaGsXoVHVeKAZZ7gG/6c/4UG6Jon4HEmMlJk7t0pk8kbZigvUHmiarLqKUzgRLHEy6EWC943RGc47HJmu78zRPOtKurba/F7kTAXfPOE1Kisc3xPj4At3xzj8ocO8fHLixCDLqKdmNtsTj1Rsd8IkThwGsKh2kY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767973521; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5nujbdNmllr5Jur0TsWHwjd2BmBIDtCSNXFXRiColpg=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=Y9e6IDLHlJpYCVmjs5tPzGx/XqS3uWMwfgkgDMxAUNZKgvhRxJsfIfQqmS0QyTP3St9ivVjIhKuE7G8eoxSCV/132m799uOFJQXJVPaTT7ytFRTIeCxwP7A6Fz9GcK8/uq4OSRdoJWc9MBH1Da0kHE6M6ndltta9L+CN1X4D6eM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mainlining.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mainlining.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=KiX6aXzS; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=4g448/Kj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=5.75.144.95 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mainlining.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mainlining.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="KiX6aXzS"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="4g448/Kj" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1767973377; bh=yNDZIpoUqU3he9IgYj84GgQ Rb3YYYgND99i4TCAb/qI=; b=KiX6aXzSNJxGeF2bMN67Y5EqjsZE1/4KlKcv6K1HjYHIHlxtw7 VIcpaMh8Dj384mrFP8yIV8sfSTjNvFm34aTLt1s+wKYq9uMq2VFIg7RRjPVX9Eu/7nfMuY4Hvj3 bsEwWJauWg5JFyQ81GBBOSci9SKVLuxfsNNNqlm++VU8xC/WJJFK8DSgmGelI8poEDnfAc5l63s MlReTERe7BcPx+iaPAWywR71K+hQY9T0WdNho4N3Qhdz378eGyzgajFHEySxjwd/TdOMOAnulUU K4yviVSBDKmyMEx1EOFKbXy02Sr+YZWcEHobbKTGGjyTHkmaXzT0j9g+pAVSMS8HE8g==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1767973377; bh=yNDZIpoUqU3he9IgYj84GgQ Rb3YYYgND99i4TCAb/qI=; b=4g448/KjJv+sbj/+Pss9o+BaquB8w7zQtLUDqeqsiqPiiRW2cO utAFPiyAkX+L5vhie2Bd/i9/uDnIYqYM76Aw==; Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:42:57 +0100 From: barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org To: Daniel Thompson Cc: Konrad Dybcio , Lee Jones , Jingoo Han , Pavel Machek , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Bjorn Andersson , Kiran Gunda , Helge Deller , Luca Weiss , Konrad Dybcio , Eugene Lepshy , Gianluca Boiano , Alejandro Tafalla , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] backlight: qcom-wled: Support ovp values for PMI8994 In-Reply-To: References: <20260108-pmi8950-wled-v2-0-8687f23147d7@mainlining.org> <20260108-pmi8950-wled-v2-2-8687f23147d7@mainlining.org> <67acbe8ff2496e18a99165d794a7bae8@mainlining.org> <0fe51f7f-9b77-4bff-ab1c-21c44a863a7a@oss.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: <00d0c357d31463272d786bcc9abfe295@mainlining.org> X-Sender: barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2026-01-09 14:33, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 12:09:11PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 1/9/26 7:36 AM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote: >> > On 2026-01-08 12:28, Daniel Thompson wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 04:43:20AM +0100, Barnabás Czémán wrote: >> >>> WLED4 found in PMI8994 supports different ovp values. >> >>> >> >>> Fixes: 6fc632d3e3e0 ("video: backlight: qcom-wled: Add PMI8994 compatible") >> >>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio >> >>> Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán >> >>> --- >> >>>  drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> >>>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >>> >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c b/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c >> >>> index a63bb42c8f8b..5decbd39b789 100644 >> >>> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c >> >>> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c >> >>> @@ -1244,6 +1244,15 @@ static const struct wled_var_cfg wled4_ovp_cfg = { >> >>>      .size = ARRAY_SIZE(wled4_ovp_values), >> >>>  }; >> >>> >> >>> +static const u32 pmi8994_wled_ovp_values[] = { >> >>> +    31000, 29500, 19400, 17800, >> >>> +}; >> >>> + >> >>> +static const struct wled_var_cfg pmi8994_wled_ovp_cfg = { >> >>> +    .values = pmi8994_wled_ovp_values, >> >>> +    .size = ARRAY_SIZE(pmi8994_wled_ovp_values), >> >>> +}; >> >>> + >> >> >> >> Do these *have* to be named after one of the two PMICs that implement >> >> this OVP range. >> >> >> >> Would something like wled4_alternative_ovp_values[] (and the same >> >> throughout the patch) be more descriptive? >> > I don't know. I don't like the PMIC naming either but at least it >> > descriptive about wich PMIC is needing these values. > > It's the descriptive but wrong element I dislike (pmi8994_wled_ovp_cfg > is used by pmi8550). No, pmi8950 is using pmi8994_wled_opts struct what is using pmi8994_wled_ovp_cfg. > > I know these things crop up for "historical reasons" when is appears in > the same patchset I have to question the naming. > > >> > I think PMIC naming would be fine if compatibles what representing the >> > same configurations would be deprecated and used as a fallback compatbile >> > style. >> > I mean we could kept the first added compatible for a configuration. >> > Maybe they should be named diferently i don't know if WLEDs have subversion. >> >> Every PMIC peripheral is versioned. >> >> WLED has separate versioning for the digital and analog parts: >> >> PMIC ANA DIG >> --------------------------- >> PMI8937 2.0 1.0 (also needs the quirk) >> PMI8950 2.0 1.0 >> PMI8994 2.0 1.0 >> PMI8996 2.1 1.0 >> PMI8998 3.1 3.0 >> PM660L 4.1 4.0 >> >> I don't know for sure if "PMIC4 with WLED ANA/DIG 3.x" a good >> discriminant though.. > > Peronally I'd prefer that to making them all use pmi8994 structures. > It's a much better link back to the docs (at least for those with the > power to read them ;-) ). > > > Daniel.