On 2026-01-09 16:42, [email protected] 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, [email protected] 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 <[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.
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.
