[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <819ecbcd-18e3-0f6b-6121-67cb363df440@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:00:02 +0200
From: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: 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 Matthias,
On 8/6/19 23:02, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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.
>>
Right, I think that only works on the cases that we only have one pwm cell, and
looks like during my tests I did only tests on devices with one pwm cell :-(
And as you point the code is broken for other cases (pwm-cells > 1)
>> 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.
>>
Looking again looks like we _can not_ deduce the number of bits of a pwm, it is
not exposed at all, so I think we will need to end adding a property to specify
this. Something similar to what leds-pwm binding does, it has:
max-brightness : Maximum brightness possible for the LED
Enric
>> 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
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists