Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:46:33 -0700 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] tegra: pwm-backlight: add tegra pwm-bl driver |
| |
On 01/19/2013 03:30 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > Add a PWM-backlight subdriver for Tegra boards, with support for > Ventana. > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-ventana.dts | 18 +++- > arch/arm/configs/tegra_defconfig | 1 + > drivers/video/backlight/Kconfig | 7 ++ > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 3 + > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl_tegra.c | 159 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This should be at least 3 separate patches: (1) Driver code (2) Ventana .dts file (3) Tegra defconfig.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-ventana.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-ventana.dts
> + backlight { > + compatible = "pwm-backlight-ventana";
If this is Ventana-specific, this should have a vendor prefix; "nvidia," would be appropriate.
But, why is this Ventana-specific; surely it's at most panel-specific, or perhaps even generic across any/most LCD panels?
There needs to be binding documentation.
> + brightness-levels = <0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 160 176 192 208 224 240 255>; > + default-brightness-level = <12>; > + > + pwms = <&pwm 2 5000000>; > + pwm-names = "backlight"; > + > + power-supply = <&vdd_bl_reg>;
"power" doesn't seem like a good regulator name; power to what? Is this for the backlight, since I see there's a panel-supply below?
> + panel-supply = <&vdd_pnl_reg>;
> + bl-gpio = <&gpio 28 0>; > + bl-panel = <&gpio 10 0>;
GPIO names usually have "gpios" in their name, so I assume those should be bl-enable-gpios, panel-enable-gpios?
> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl_tegra.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl_tegra.c
> +static void exit_ventana(struct device *dev) > +{ > + struct ventana_bl_data *data = pwm_backlight_get_subdriver_data(dev); > + > + devm_gpio_free(dev, data->panel_gpio); > + devm_gpio_free(dev, data->bl_gpio); > + devm_regulator_put(data->vdd_panel); > + devm_regulator_put(data->vdd_power); > + devm_kfree(dev, data); > +}
There shouldn't be a need to explicitly free devm-allocated objects in almost all cases; that's the whole point of the devm APIs.
> +static struct pwm_backlight_subdriver pwm_backlight_ventana_subdriver = { > + .name = "pwm-backlight-ventana", > + .init = init_ventana, > + .exit = exit_ventana, > + .notify = notify_ventana, > + .notify_after = notify_after_ventana, > +};
It seems like all of that code should be completely generic.
> +static int __init pwm_backlight_tegra_init(void) > +{ > + pwm_backlight_add_subdriver(&pwm_backlight_ventana_subdriver); > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void __exit pwm_backlight_tegra_exit(void) > +{ > + pwm_backlight_remove_subdriver(&pwm_backlight_ventana_subdriver); > +} > + > +module_init(pwm_backlight_tegra_init); > +module_exit(pwm_backlight_tegra_exit);
Rather than invent some new registration mechanism, if we need board-/panel-/...-specific drivers, it'd be better to make each of those specific drivers a full platform device in an of itself (i.e. regular Linux platform device/driver, have its own probe(), etc.), and have those specific drivers call into the base PWM backlight code, treating it like a utility API.
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Backlight Driver for Tegra boards"); > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:pwm-tegra-backlight"); > + > +
Some extra blank lines there.
| |