[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190816175317.GU250418@google.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:53:17 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] backlight: Expose brightness curve type through
sysfs
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:54:18PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 07/08/2019 21:15, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 12:00:05PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > Backlight brightness curves can have different shapes. The two main
> > > types are linear and non-linear curves. The human eye doesn't
> > > perceive linearly increasing/decreasing brightness as linear (see
> > > also 88ba95bedb79 "backlight: pwm_bl: Compute brightness of LED
> > > linearly to human eye"), hence many backlights use non-linear (often
> > > logarithmic) brightness curves. The type of curve currently is opaque
> > > to userspace, so userspace often uses more or less reliable heuristics
> > > (like the number of brightness levels) to decide whether to treat a
> > > backlight device as linear or non-linear.
> > >
> > > Export the type of the brightness curve via the new sysfs attribute
> > > 'scale'. The value of the attribute can be 'linear', 'non-linear' or
> > > 'unknown'. For devices that don't provide information about the scale
> > > of their brightness curve the value of the 'scale' attribute is 'unknown'.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> >
> > Daniel (et al): do you have any more comments on this patch/series or
> > is it ready to land?
>
> I decided to leave it for a long while for others to review since I'm still
> a tiny bit uneasy about the linear/non-linear terminology.
>
> However that's my only concern, its fairly minor and I've dragged by feet
> for more then long enough, so:
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Thanks!
If you or someone else has another suggestion for the terminology that
we can all agree on I'm happy to change it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists