lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Rename pwm_backlight pwm-lookup to pwm_pmic_backlight
From
Date
Hi Lee,

On 10-12-2019 09:51, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
>> At least Bay Trail (BYT) and Cherry Trail (CHT) devices can use 1 of 2
>> different PWM controllers for controlling the LCD's backlight brightness.
>>
>> Either the one integrated into the PMIC or the one integrated into the
>> SoC (the 1st LPSS PWM controller).
>>
>> So far in the LPSS code on BYT we have skipped registering the LPSS PWM
>> controller "pwm_backlight" lookup entry when a Crystal Cove PMIC is
>> present, assuming that in this case the PMIC PWM controller will be used.
>>
>> On CHT we have been relying on only 1 of the 2 PWM controllers being
>> enabled in the DSDT at the same time; and always registered the lookup.
>>
>> So far this has been working, but the correct way to determine which PWM
>> controller needs to be used is by checking a bit in the VBT table and
>> recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
>> Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
>> Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
>>
>> Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
>> PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
>> heuristics fail.
>>
>> Since only the i915 driver has access to the VBT, this commit renames
>> the "pwm_backlight" lookup entries for the Crystal Cove PMIC's PWM
>> controller to "pwm_pmic_backlight" so that the i915 driver can do a
>> pwm_get() for the right controller depending on the VBT bit, instead of
>> the i915 driver relying on a "pwm_backlight" lookup getting registered
>> which magically points to the right controller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> For my own reference:
> Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

As mentioned in the cover-letter, to avoid breaking bi-sectability
as well as to avoid breaking the intel-gfx CI we need to merge this series
in one go through one tree. Specifically through the drm-intel tree.
Is that ok with you ?

If this is ok with you, then you do not have to do anything, I will just push
the entire series to drm-intel. drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
does not see much changes so I do not expect this to lead to any conflicts.

Regards,

Hans

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-11 18:31    [W:0.069 / U:4.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site