From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932881AbcDTJSD (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2016 05:18:03 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:35954 "EHLO mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932079AbcDTJR7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2016 05:17:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <571746A2.8040609@schinagl.nl> References: <1461051650-18824-1-git-send-email-oliver@schinagl.nl> <5715F927.3030102@samsung.com> <5715FCE8.7080106@schinagl.nl> <57163252.5090000@schinagl.nl> <57172DFA.9030107@schinagl.nl> <5717430D.30702@schinagl.nl> <571746A2.8040609@schinagl.nl> From: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:17:38 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 0/6] leds: pca9653x: support inverted outputs and cleanups To: Olliver Schinagl Cc: Jacek Anaszewski , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Richard Purdie , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , Linux LED Subsystem , Peter Meerwald Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello again On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > The devil is in the details :) :) >> >> Saving mode2 sounds like a good compromise then. >> >> But I still believe that we should limit the lock to ledout. No matter >> what we do, we cannot have two leds blinking at different frequencies >> on the same chip. > > So to save a mutex a little bit, we take the risk that nobody else enables > the blink or if they do, enable it in the same way? > If it saves so much, then I guess its worth the risk I suppose? Give me a day to go through the chip doc and see if I can find a good compromise, that at least warranties that the leds that are enable stay enabled ;) Regards! -- Ricardo Ribalda