Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] backlight: qcom-wled: Support ovp values for PMI8994

[barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org]

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 <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán <barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org>
>> ---
>>  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.
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.
> 
> 
> Daniel.