On 2018-05-08 22:49, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Tue 08 May 05:26 PDT 2018, kgunda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
