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 DF07D33C1B3; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 15:48:21 +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=1767973705; cv=none; b=uevjv4Y+FYZLSazUKo/T6UjRZvxTldadxiQ525R50JrlCX4t593+fRebizmSzOu0wXp3wOT6LTywFtaADAO9hPc9xvTw5qpAntnMMM96c/l0hJ2rtadkUukQsI0cAWqZ9bW93E5Tx2DdMwULy1eMds553TV0v2Ei1UsxF2WNL9Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767973705; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/Uw3GGnxPQUcEYWkRHwX0bPOI11uhcg+OxtQTIUpCfw=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=SOKKZv8vhh4bGHNjj2cPS4cHEgcJCvw5h1t/Q1UvVk6gKwy8LySZwJpjl/tHaQQSRQWvG1wtC92iAaM6BYQb9B7tE8pcNP0RatG94Ogkv1elfBX/DFOl8/RJoqqLZxOp+9Kc5YNWXemiS3F9znxf9Mp7uCn4m6opJIiWz5tCOwE= 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=QLxjpT8D; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=cTxe+DFS; 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="QLxjpT8D"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="cTxe+DFS" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1767973552; bh=kgvZjKseW7XXTgnrU98FYJ4 WNKjj7962wN9LQSN4pQU=; b=QLxjpT8Dbhd4TzBlDG75uESVugiOBVAoKrIZWZl3lJ9Ev8v+WC dK001qV0uMX8X09R2aRjv2rwdeHqjexEyiwRRd0ncngJuhnrsUy52uklW1g5K3PgvpmcJYVmmQ+ X55Vzr8fxvAdyJYOYQozC3M1JwhIOxdKcZMx7fLeJr/xYiLZkmv56NqLml4HJUWrwSGcswXqmol 8Ny8YHrDyZPa+wpG4KU1Auc+BT7QBgFn+nxM1Ol6g+TgwUXXU+XutF073c0LtqSbEc6EHdHMuXr IFpUi26VOcvux943bUcRj//X7qUdPGI4caDimixKdJOlVrOsJQ+GeZdFRprVn6ZgFkw==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1767973552; bh=kgvZjKseW7XXTgnrU98FYJ4 WNKjj7962wN9LQSN4pQU=; b=cTxe+DFSSiJPDx479bcskm4p/mkHkx+Mqh+oGQiFuhdZACZCLW 1RBJWE2fhFC791X49V2CyvO4ySJZpew74jBg==; Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:45:52 +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: <00d0c357d31463272d786bcc9abfe295@mainlining.org> 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> <00d0c357d31463272d786bcc9abfe295@mainlining.org> Message-ID: <886d98f40c8f99c7d6d236ddbec487be@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 16:42, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote: > 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. Maybe would be better move opts to compatible data. >> >> 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.