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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán <[email protected]>
---
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.
