[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190608210226.GB2359@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 23:02:26 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...gle.com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Alexandru Stan <amstan@...gle.com>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] backlight: pwm_bl: compute brightness of LED
linearly to human eye.
Hi!
> > + * Note that this method is based on empirical testing on different
> > + * devices with PWM of 8 and 16 bits of resolution.
> > + */
> > + n = period;
> > + while (n) {
> > + counter += n % 2;
> > + n >>= 1;
> > + }
>
> I don't quite follow the heuristics above. Are you sure the number of
> PWM bits can be infered from the period? What if the period value (in
> ns) doesn't directly correspond to a register value? And even if it
> did, counting the number of set bits (the above loops is a
> re-implementation of ffs()) doesn't really result in the dividers
> mentioned in the comment. E.g. a period of 32768 ns (0x8000) results
> in a divider of 1, i.e. 32768 brighness levels.
>
> On veyron minnie the period is 1000000 ns, which results in 142858
> levels (1000000 / 7)!
>
> Not sure if there is a clean solution using heuristics, a DT property
> specifying the number of levels could be an alternative. This could
> also be useful to limit the number of (mostly) redundant levels, even
> the intended max of 4096 seems pretty high.
>
> Another (not directly related) observation is that on minnie the
> actual brightness at a nominal 50% is close to 0 (duty cycle ~3%). I
> haven't tested with other devices, but I wonder if it would make
> sense to have an option to drop the bottom N% of levels, since the
> near 0 brightness in the lower 50% probably isn't very useful in most
> use cases, but maybe it looks different on other devices.
Eye percieves logarithm(duty cycle), mostly, and I find very low brightness
levels quite useful when trying to use machine in dark room.
But yes, specifying if brightness is linear or exponential would be quite
useful.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists