Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 May 2018 10:36:01 +0530 | From | kgunda@codeauro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH V1 4/5] backlight: qcom-wled: Add support for OVP interrupt handling |
| |
On 2018-05-08 22:49, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue 08 May 05:26 PDT 2018, kgunda@codeaurora.org wrote: > >> On 2018-05-07 22:51, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> > On Thu 03 May 02:57 PDT 2018, Kiran Gunda wrote: > [..] >> > > @@ -220,7 +255,12 @@ static int wled_module_enable(struct wled >> > > *wled, int val) >> > > WLED3_CTRL_REG_MOD_EN, >> > > WLED3_CTRL_REG_MOD_EN_MASK, >> > > WLED3_CTRL_REG_MOD_EN_MASK); >> > > - return rc; >> > > + if (rc < 0) >> > > + return rc; >> > > + >> > > + schedule_delayed_work(&wled->ovp_work, WLED_SOFT_START_DLY_US); >> > >> > Do you really want to delay the work on disable? >> > >> > Wouldn't it be better to use a delay worker for the enablement and in >> > the disable case you cancel the work and just disable_irq() directly >> > here. >> > >> Sure. Will do it in the next series. >> > But more importantly, if this is only related to auto detection, do you >> > really want to enable/disable the ovp_irq after you have detected the >> > string configuration? >> > >> Ok. This is used for the genuine OVP detection and for the auto >> detection as >> well. > > What is the expected outcome of detecting an OVP condition, outside > auto > detection? > Ok... Out side auto detection, it is used for information purpose. I think it is okay to ignore enable/disable the ovp_irq after auto detection is done. > Regards, > Bjorn
| |