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 E9A8B28850E; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 06:36:17 +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=1767940580; cv=none; b=hXuYaAXNP7mwfa43SQg9MiAnk1X3hxmdQZ9sjYEimkty6VTSdftQPi3nmjssf/wc5HAdaRjinb+FOe5f2W0roW8OnktGFNCo7ZRUAIVQ4OCdZHCflFCMFMcccj19IvgoM1gooE5TVwM3z3rCpb7zH3TQsPGDi56u2iNSKWxalrQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767940580; c=relaxed/simple; bh=k6nAvvx5UVSbHO88lKNTmQGUQoFtGy7kceT8JUpw8Go=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=ILf0ejMAdZBXFViN8jr9PYB08weYBeED6OkhUqn99V4yAc1Jy0b9XyKIdnRlTViHXJGahu6vNqxxNuMpAVy4m0mrPCuSdaY2NfgOFmwgqnOAtojhWxeZt4gTxYnmwrzwxytD8kAJfzZTZuKIo5hfNiR/u/ZxFjs3UmIWIqRqqBo= 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=Z3k8rymC; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=WkmcQYPp; 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="Z3k8rymC"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="WkmcQYPp" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1767940563; bh=KFBoG2fcIxheggmVM+AQApJ yuE3iDl57EzYZzdHaxmg=; b=Z3k8rymCyRPCCIoyqZxbsyayVvG6CGqsrcdjyQLcc/LKkxIegQ vPOzZnySkZG2C00gULRdqZb+Lajp/acC0LJkGFAZ4DgeJBloaNsOSvyT5t+ABWqJnJgqHjwckm5 P7LIszibYJqye37DKObXGq1Ih+0lv+0AZ8y0OYYB8dw0ZqrI6tVphU5bB1KOazs9c/KcUDiAr1O DEjiR0PDR2hxgpPzYlL9ufH9LmvCXuqJuDREMPOhJ5RhxFLX45QhCwNAsRnEaSOF132tdVmS4VO cE2RxtWUpIWFUZZURRfPCXFMKg9PtUJhpEO692b3YqMiK4ikZ5/6eO3Bm/AZmDKH67Q==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1767940563; bh=KFBoG2fcIxheggmVM+AQApJ yuE3iDl57EzYZzdHaxmg=; b=WkmcQYPppQ+K2wEGm8QDA4IprDuJbg1u8P1XyGaIOvv7OO0LBh TEfwfdosBtVkxS8JSsxAZ/SmM2HhGojcn4BA==; Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 07:36:03 +0100 From: barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org To: Daniel Thompson Cc: 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, Daniel Thompson , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Konrad Dybcio 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> Message-ID: <67acbe8ff2496e18a99165d794a7bae8@mainlining.org> X-Sender: barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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. 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.