Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: pwm: add enable-gpios property

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 03/07/2025 12:27, LI Qingwu wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 5:59 PM
>> To: LI Qingwu <Qing-wu.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; lee@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> pavel@xxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-leds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GEO-CHHER-bsp-development
>> <bsp-development.geo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: pwm: add enable-gpios property
>>
>> This email is not from Hexagon’s Office 365 instance. Please be careful while
>> clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to this email.

Please drop this, it is not relevant in upstream discussions. Use normal
email client which will not produce useless header above.


>>
>>
>> On 03/07/2025 11:34, LI Qingwu wrote:
>>> some pwm led driver chips like tps92380 require a separate enable
>>> signal
>>
>> Sentence starts with capital letter.
>>
>> tps92380 does not have dedicated enable pin. It has VDDIO, which serves also
>> enable purpose, but it is a supply.
> 
> So this patch is unacceptable anyway?

If you make this patch for tps92380, I think it is not correct. You have
entire commit msg to explain the hardware and all unusual things. Having
VDDIO and EN pin is unusual, because you do not supply power directly
from GPIOs of a SoC. All this should be explained.

Best regards,
Krzysztof