On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:21:56 +0100 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > Is this needed? > > > > > > This is a remove path, not a power management path, and we have no idea > > > what the original status of the pin was anyway? > > > > > > > Looking at Ishdn on page 5 of the datasheet, switching it off everytime > > possible seems not needed. We would need to call chip_init() everytime > > we enable the gpio or live with default values. > > Therefore I did decide to not put it into any power management path. > > But switching it on and not switching it off feels so unbalanced. > > Either the power consumed by the controller when strings aren't lit up > matters, in which case the driver should implement proper power > management or it doesn't matter and changing the pin state isn't needed. > > I'm happy with either of the above but this looks like a third way, > where eager users could hack in a bit of extra power management by > forcing drivers to unbind. > I think I will take the simple way. I am quite sure that the power consumption with HWEN on and leds off does not matter. If someone later comes up and finds out that I misread the datasheet, things are prepared to be improved. At least the hardware can be properly described in the devicetree. Regards, Andreas
Attachment:
pgpH9r1KcasPM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
