Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] Add Advantech EIO Backlight driver
Daniel Thompson <[email protected]> Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:43:30 +0100
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-i2c,dev.linux.lists.mfd,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-fbdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-gpio,org.kernel.vger.linux-hwmon,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.linux-watchdog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 05:54:19PM +0200, Ramiro Oliveira wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/eio_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/eio_bl.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..c2826400de45 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/eio_bl.c > @@ -0,0 +1,243 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > +/* > + * Backlight driver for Advantech EIO Embedded controller. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2025 Advantech Corporation. All rights reserved. > + */ > + > +#include <linux/backlight.h> > +#include <linux/errno.h> > +#include <linux/mfd/core.h> > +#include <linux/mfd/eio.h> > +#include <linux/module.h> > +#include <linux/uaccess.h> > + > +#define PMC_BL_WRITE 0x20 > +#define PMC_BL_READ 0x21 > + > +#define BL_CTRL_STATUS 0x00 > +#define BL_CTRL_ENABLE 0x12 > +#define BL_CTRL_ENABLE_INVERT 0x13 > +#define BL_CTRL_DUTY 0x14 > +#define BL_CTRL_INVERT 0x15 > +#define BL_CTRL_FREQ 0x16 > + > +#define BL_MAX 2 > + > +#define BL_STATUS_AVAIL 0x01 > +#define BL_ENABLE_OFF 0x00 > +#define BL_ENABLE_ON 0x01 > +#define BL_ENABLE_AUTO BIT(1) > + > +#define USE_DEFAULT -1 > +#define THERMAL_MAX 100 > + > +static uint bri_freq = USE_DEFAULT; > +module_param(bri_freq, uint, 0444); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bri_freq, "Setup backlight PWM frequency.\n"); > + > +static int bri_invert = USE_DEFAULT; > +module_param(bri_invert, int, 0444); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bri_invert, "Setup backlight PWM polarity.\n"); > + > +static int bl_power_invert = USE_DEFAULT; > +module_param(bl_power_invert, int, 0444); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bl_power_invert, "Setup backlight enable pin polarity.\n"); There is still pending feedback on the module parameters and I can't see any reaction anywhere. : Module parameters are not really expected these days and are : pretty user hostile. : : Are they really needed? AFAICT this is a firmware based device. Why : doesn't the firmware provide this information if the drivers need it : (either directly or via PNP ID and a lookup table)? Please don't ignore feedback! Daniel.