| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160617141719.GH21702@dell>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:17:19 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Lothar Waßmann <LW@...O-electronics.de>
Cc: Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] backlight: pwm_bl: disable PWM when 'duty_cycle' is
zero
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:54:49 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:44:49 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:51:25 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 07 Jun 2016, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'brightness' is usually an index into a table of duty_cycle values,
> > > > > > > where the value at index 0 may well be non-zero
> > > > > > > (tegra30-apalis-eval.dts and tegra30-colibri-eval-v3.dts are real-life
> > > > > > > examples).
> > > > > > > Thus brightness == 0 does not necessarily mean that the PWM output
> > > > > > > will be inactive.
> > > > > > > Check for 'duty_cycle == 0' rather than 'brightness == 0' to decide
> > > > > > > whether to disable the PWM.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Waßmann <LW@...O-electronics.de>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Changes wrt. v1:
> > > > > > > - update binding docs to reflect the change
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt | 9 ++++++---
> > > > > > > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
> > > > > > > index 764db86..95fa8a9 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
> > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
> > > > > > > @@ -4,10 +4,13 @@ Required properties:
> > > > > > > - compatible: "pwm-backlight"
> > > > > > > - pwms: OF device-tree PWM specification (see PWM binding[0])
> > > > > > > - brightness-levels: Array of distinct brightness levels. Typically these
> > > > > > > - are in the range from 0 to 255, but any range starting at 0 will do.
> > > > > > > + are in the range from 0 to 255, but any range will do.
> > > > > > > The actual brightness level (PWM duty cycle) will be interpolated
> > > > > > > - from these values. 0 means a 0% duty cycle (darkest/off), while the
> > > > > > > - last value in the array represents a 100% duty cycle (brightest).
> > > > > > > + from these values. 0 means a 0% duty cycle, while the highest value in
> > > > > > > + the array represents a 100% duty cycle.
> > > > > > > + The range may be in reverse order (starting with the maximum duty cycle
> > > > > > > + value) to create a PWM signal with the 100% duty cycle representing
> > > > > > > + minimum and 0% duty cycle maximum brigthness.
> > > > > > > - default-brightness-level: the default brightness level (index into the
> > > > > > > array defined by the "brightness-levels" property)
> > > > > > > - power-supply: regulator for supply voltage
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > > index b2b366b..80b2b52 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > > @@ -103,8 +103,8 @@ static int pwm_backlight_update_status(struct backlight_device *bl)
> > > > > > > if (pb->notify)
> > > > > > > brightness = pb->notify(pb->dev, brightness);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - if (brightness > 0) {
> > > > > > > - duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness);
> > > > > > > + duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness);
> > > > > > > + if (duty_cycle > 0) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does this work in the aforementioned:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The range may be in reverse order"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ... case? Surely when duty_cycle is when the screen should be at it's
> > > > > > brightest? Wouldn't it confuse the user if they turn their brightness
> > > > > > *up* and the screen goes *off*?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Assuming that the PWM output is inactive (LOW) when the duty_cycle is
> > > > > set to zero, there will be no difference between operating the PWM at
> > > > > duty_cycle 0 or disabling it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently, the screen will go bright when it should be off in this
> > > > > case.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds like we need something that lets the framework know if
> > > > duty_cycle = MAX is the brightest or if duty_cycle = 0 is. Either way
> > > > someone is going to get screwed by this logic.
> > > >
> > > The backlight framework does not (and does not need to) know anything
> > > about PWM duty cycles. Its 'brightness' values are consistently 0 ==
> > > dark, max == brightest in either case.
> >
> > What I'm getting at is; by the look of the documentation, the
> > brightest setting can either be a duty cycle of 0 or 255. So what
> > happens with your new semantics when the duty cycle of 0 represents
> > the brightest setting and you reach 0? Didn't you just turn the
> > backlight off?
> >
> As mentioned earlier, disabling the PWM has generally the same result as
> setting the duty cycle to 0. The current behaviour is broken in this
> case, since setting brightness to 0 with a non-zero duty_cycle as the
> first element of brightness-levels, the PWM will be disabled rather than
> switched to the given duty cycle.
> Disabling the PWM should have the same effect as setting the duty cycle
> to 0, so it is safe to check for duty_cycle == 0 to decide whether to
> disable the PWM.
I agree with this. BUT, that's not what you're doing is it?
Look at the code you're trying to write:
duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness);
if (duty_cycle > 0) {
pwm_config(pb->pwm, duty_cycle, pb->period);
pwm_backlight_power_on(pb, brightness);
} else
pwm_backlight_power_off(pb);
Let's say duty_cycle == 0. In some cases this can mean "turn
brightness up to the *maximum*", but with your new logic you just
turned the backlight *off*.
Conversely, let's say duty_cycle == 255. In some cases this can mean
"turn the brightness to the *lowest* setting" i.e. *off*. Well your
logic just turned the backlight *on*.
If there is something I'm missing, you're going to have to find a
better way to explain it to me.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists