[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] backlight: add led-backlight driver

> > > > Also still relevant is whether the LED device is being correctly
> > > > modelled if the act of turning on the LED doesn't, in fact, turn the LED
> > > > on. Is it *really* a correct implementation of an LED device that
> > > > setting it to LED_FULL using sysfs doesn't cause it to light up?
> > > What I understood from the discussion between Rob and Tomi is that the
> > > child-node of the LED controller should be considered a backlight device,
> > > not a simple LED. I'm not sure if the sysfs interface is still relevant in
> > > that case. Maybe it should just be disabled by the backlight driver
> > > (possible with led_sysfs_disable())
> > led_sysfs_disable() sounds like a sensible change but that's not quite
> > what I mean.
> >
> > It is more a thought experiment to see if the power control *should* be
> > implemented by the backlight. Consider what happens if we *don't*
> > enable CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_LED in the kernel: we would still have an LED
> > device and it would not work correctly.
> >
> > In other words I naively expect turning on an LED using the LED API
> > (any of them, sysfs or kernel) to result in the LED turning on.
> > Implementing a workaround in the client for what appears to be
> > something missing in the LED driver strikes me as odd. Why shouldn't
> > the regulator be managed in the LED driver?
> I see your point. Indeed having the regulator handled in the LED-core makes
> sense in a lot of situations
> I'll think about it.

For the record, I also believe regulator and enable gpio should be
handled in the core.

PS please trim down the quoted text.
(cesky, pictures)

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-05 12:10    [W:0.069 / U:52.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site