On 17/07/17 22:28, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
Before this patch the enable signal was set before the PWM signal and
vice-versa on power off. I guess that this sequence is wrong, at least,
it is on the different panels datasheets that I checked, so I inverted
the sequence to follow the specs.
Could you list the part numbers for the panels you checked? Getting that
in the git history would be really helpful for future archaeologists
(including me).
Also whilst changing the header I'd also say that "I guess that" does
not inspire much confidence. It sounds like you have done some homework
here... surely you've moved past guess work!
Daniel.
Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v2:
- Add this as a separate patch (Thierry Reding)
Changes since v1:
- None
drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
index 002f1ce..909a686 100644
--- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
+++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
@@ -54,10 +54,11 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_on(struct pwm_bl_data *pb, int brightness)
if (err < 0)
dev_err(pb->dev, "failed to enable power supply\n");
+ pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
+
if (pb->enable_gpio)
gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pb->enable_gpio, 1);
- pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
pb->enabled = true;
}
@@ -66,12 +67,12 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_off(struct pwm_bl_data *pb)
if (!pb->enabled)
return;
- pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);
- pwm_disable(pb->pwm);
-
if (pb->enable_gpio)
gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pb->enable_gpio, 0);
+ pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);
+ pwm_disable(pb->pwm);
+
regulator_disable(pb->power_supply);
pb->enabled = false;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
