Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 1 Mar 2021 09:39:02 +0000
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
To:     kgunda@codeaurora.org
Cc:     bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, jingoohan1@gmail.com,
        lee.jones@linaro.org, b.zolnierkie@samsung.com,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com,
        pavel@ucw.cz, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
        phone-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] backlight: qcom-wled: Correct the sync_toggle
 sequence
Message-ID: <20210301093902.34mtfcouajc36y6t@maple.lan>
References: <1614341544-5306-1-git-send-email-kgunda@codeaurora.org>
 <1614341544-5306-3-git-send-email-kgunda@codeaurora.org>
 <20210226172601.aknj2d4hghkkqjol@maple.lan>
 <0cca377c2a7648c5f1606e38ba1b7d4d@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0cca377c2a7648c5f1606e38ba1b7d4d@codeaurora.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:15:12PM +0530, kgunda@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2021-02-26 22:56, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 05:42:24PM +0530, Kiran Gunda wrote:
> > > As per the current implementation, after FSC (Full Scale Current)
> > > and brightness update the sync bits are transitioned from 1 to 0.
> > 
> > This still seems to incorrectly describe the current behaviour.
> > 
> > Surely in most cases (i.e. every time except the first) the value of the
> > sync bit is 0 when the function is called and we get both a 0 to 1
> > and then a 1 to 0 transition.
> > 
> > That is why I recommended set-then-clear terminology to describe the
> > current behaviour. It is concise and correct.
>
> Okay. Actually I have mentioned the "clear-and-set" in explaining the fix.
> Let me modify the same terminology in explaining the problem case also.

Yes please.

In my original review I took time to explain why patch descriptions
require care and attention and, also, why expressing the original behaviour
as 1 to 0 was inadequate. Based on the previous feedback (and reply) I
was rather surprised that the problem was only half corrected in the
next revision.


Daniel.