[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190617200314.GT137143@google.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:03:14 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...gle.com>,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
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>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Alexandru Stan <amstan@...gle.com>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <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 Pavel,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 03:01:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Certainly "linear" (this device will work more or less correctly if the
> > > userspace applies perceptual curves). Not sure about logarithmic since
> > > what is actually useful is something that is "perceptually linear"
> > > (logarithmic is merely a way to approximate that).
> > >
> > > I do wonder about a compatible string like most-detailed to
> > > least-detailed description. This for a PWM with the auto-generated
> > > tables we'd see something like:
> > >
> > > cie-1991,perceptual,non-linear
> > >
> > > For something that is non-linear but we are not sure what its tables are
> > > we can offer just "non-linear".
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback!
> >
> > It seems clear that we want a string for the added flexibility. I can
> > work on a patch with the compatible string like description you
> > suggested and we can discuss in the review if we want to go with that
> > or prefer something else.
>
> Compatible-like string seems overly complicated.
I see the merit in the sense that it allows to provide more precision
for if userspace wants/needs it, without requiring userspace to know all
possible (future) options. If userspace wants to keep things simple it
can just check for check for "s == 'non-linear'" and
"s.ends_with(',non-linear')"
In any case, I posted a first version of the patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1088760/
Maybe best to center the discussion there?
> > > Instead one valid value for the sysfs should be "unknown" and this be
> > > the default for drivers we have not analysed (this also makes it easy to
> > > introduce change here).
> >
> > An "unknown" value sounds good, it allows userspace to just do what it
> > did/would hace done before this attribute existed.
>
> What about simply not presenting the attribute when we don't have the
> information?
I'm open to either, I mentioned it earlier and Daniel seemed to prefer
the 'unknown' value so I went with it in the first version (it's also
slightly less code).
Cheers
Matthias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists