Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add support for eDP panel on CRD

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Thu 17 Feb 17:03 PST 2022, Doug Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:58 AM Sankeerth Billakanti
> <quic_sbillaka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +       backlight_3v3_regulator: backlight-3v3-regulator {
> > +               compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > +               regulator-name = "backlight_3v3_regulator";
> > +
> > +               regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > +               regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > +
> > +               gpio = <&pm8350c_gpios 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > +               enable-active-high;
> > +
> > +               pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +               pinctrl-0 = <&edp_bl_power>;
> > +       };
> 
> So I'm pretty sure that this is wrong and what you had on a previous
> patch was more correct. Specifically the PMIC's GPIO 7 truly _is_ an
> enable pin for the backlight. In the schematics I see it's named as
> "PMIC_EDP_BL_EN" and is essentially the same net as "EDP_BL_EN". This
> is distinct from the backlight _regulator_ that is named VREG_EDP_BP.
> I believe the VREG_EDP_BP is essentially sourced directly from
> PPVAR_SYS. That's how it works on herobrine and I believe that CRD is
> the same. You currently don't model ppvar_sys, but it's basically just
> a variable-voltage rail that could be provided somewhat directly from
> the battery or could be provided from Type C components. I believe
> that the panel backlight is designed to handle this fairly wide
> voltage range and it's done this way to get the best efficiency.
> 
> So personally I'd prefer if you do something like herobrine and model
> PPVAR_SYS. Then the backlight can use ppvar_sys as its regulator and
> you can go back to providing this as an "enable" pin for the
> backlight.
> 
> I know, technically it doesn't _really_ matter, but it's nice to model
> it more correctly.

While I've not seen your schematics, the proposal does look similar to
what I have on sc8180x, where there's a power rail, the BL_EN and a pwm
signal.

If that's the case I think representing BL_EN using the enable-gpios
property directly in the pwm-backlight node seems more appropriate (with
power-supply being the actual thing that powers the backlight).

If however gpio 7 is wired to something like the enable-pin on an actual
LDO the proposal here seems reasonable, but it seems unlikely that the
output of that would be named "backlight_3v3_regulator"?

Regards,
Bjorn