> -----Original Message----- > From: Varadarajan, Charulatha > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:48 PM > To: Hiremath, Vaibhav > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP3EVM: Made backlight GPIO default state to off > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:33, Hiremath, Vaibhav <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Varadarajan, Charulatha [mailto:charu@xxxxxx] > >> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:12 PM > >> To: Hiremath, Vaibhav > >> Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxx; > tony@xxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP3EVM: Made backlight GPIO default state to off > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:06, <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > From: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> > >> > > >> > If you choose default output to DVI, the LCD backlight stays on, > >> > since panel->disable function never gets called. > >> > > >> > So, during init put backlight GPIO to off state and the driver > >> > code will decide which output to enable. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c | 5 ++++- > >> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c b/arch/arm/mach- > >> omap2/board-omap3evm.c > >> > index 1b8a806..3f5117a 100644 > >> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c > >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3evm.c > >> > @@ -448,7 +448,10 @@ static int omap3evm_twl_gpio_setup(struct device > >> *dev, > >> > > >> > /* TWL4030_GPIO_MAX + 0 == ledA, LCD Backlight control */ > >> > gpio_request(gpio + TWL4030_GPIO_MAX, "EN_LCD_BKL"); > >> > >> Check for the return value and then only proceed > >> > > [Hiremath, Vaibhav] I do agree with you, we should check the return > value. But just to clarify on this, the line above is not being added be > me. Its original code. > > Yes I noticed. But since you are fixing this part of the code (the > immediate next line), > I thought of mentioning it. > [Hiremath, Vaibhav] Why not handle in separate patch, since there are lots of instances of gpio_xxx where we do not have return check. Let this patch do what is meant to, I will submit another patch for return check where I will try to handle rest of gpio_xxx. Thanks, Vaibhav > > > > I will change the patch and submit it again shortly. > > > > Thanks, > > Vaibhav > >> > - gpio_direction_output(gpio + TWL4030_GPIO_MAX, 0); > >> > + if (get_omap3_evm_rev() >= OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_2) > >> > + gpio_direction_output(gpio + TWL4030_GPIO_MAX, 1); > >> > >> Check for the return value > >> > >> > + else > >> > + gpio_direction_output(gpio + TWL4030_GPIO_MAX, 0); > >> > >> Ditto > >> > >> > > >> > /* gpio + 7 == DVI Enable */ > >> > gpio_request(gpio + 7, "EN_DVI"); > >> > -- > >> > 1.6.2.4 > >> > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
