Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm-backlight: add pwm-delay-us property
From: Enric Balletbo Serra
Date: Thu Jul 06 2017 - 14:23:33 EST
2017-07-06 19:07 GMT+02:00 Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Enric Balletbo i Serra
> <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: huang lin <hl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Add a pwm-delay-us property to specify the delay between setting an
>> initial (non-zero) PWM value and enabling the backlight, and also the
>> delay between disabling the backlight and setting PWM value to 0.
>> Signed-off-by: huang lin <hl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Changes since v1:
>> - As suggested by Daniel Thompson
>> - Do not assume power-on delay and power-off delay will be the same
>> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/28/219
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
>> index 764db86..49b037e 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
>> @@ -17,6 +17,11 @@ Optional properties:
>> "pwms" property (see PWM binding)
>> - enable-gpios: contains a single GPIO specifier for the GPIO which enables
>> and disables the backlight (see GPIO binding)
>> + - pwm-delay-us: delay between setting an initial (non-zero) PWM value and
>> + enabling the backlight, and also the delay between disabling
>> + the backlight and setting PWM value to 0.
>> + The 1st cell is the pre-delay in micro seconds.
>> + The 2nd cell is the post-delay in micro seconds.
> pre and post imply a time before and after a certain event, but these
> are for 2 different events. These are more like an enable/on delay and
> disable/off delay which probably should be separate properties. What
> happens when we need the opposite sequence or a different sequence?
> Maybe some panel requires the PWM to be 0 until some time after
Maybe, Only I can say that the panels I checked always first enable
the PWM and then set the ENABLE signal, but of course I didn't check
all the panels.
Would be more acceptable have enable-delay-us and disable-delay-us proprieties?
> I don't understand why you even need a post delay. The PWM can be set
> to 0 while enabled, right? So if the PWM is set to 0 while enabled and
> then disable the backlight, then there's no delay. Plus this doesn't
> make much sense to me electrically either. The PWM duty cycle is going
> to be completely async to the enable line change. The PWM state could
> go from 1 to 0 at any point in time relative to the enable line
To be honest I'm also not sure why is required the post delay, some
panels specify a 0 but others specifies a minimum value between you
off the panel and disable the PWM. The only reason I added the post
delay is because the different datasheets specifies it, I don't have a
use case that the post delay is used to fix something.
> These issues are the problem with generic bindings. Adding 1 property
> is no big deal, but then what happens with the next variation. These
> timing constraints need to be able to be implied by the panel's