Re: [PATCH v2] backlight: turn backlight on/off when necessary
From: Jingoo Han
Date: Thu Jan 23 2014 - 00:44:14 EST
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:36 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > We don't have to turn backlight on/off everytime a blanking
> > or unblanking event comes because the backlight status may
> > have already been what we want. Another thought is that one
> > backlight device may be shared by multiple framebuffers. We
> > don't hope blanking one of the framebuffers may turn the
> > backlight off for all the other framebuffers, since they are
> > likely being active to display something. This patch adds
> > some logics to record each framebuffer's backlight usage to
> > determine the backlight device use count and whether the
> > backlight should be turned on or off. To be more specific,
> > only one unblank operation on a certain blanked framebuffer
> > may increase the backlight device's use count by one, while
> > one blank operation on a certain unblanked framebuffer may
> > decrease the use count by one, because the userspace is
> > likely to unblank a unblanked framebuffer or blank a blanked
> > framebuffer.
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v1 can be found at https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/30/139
> > v1->v2:
> > * Make the commit message be more specific about the condition
> > in which backlight device use count can be increased/decreased.
> > * Correct the setting for bd->props.fb_blank.
> > drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > include/linux/backlight.h | 6 ++++++
> > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> Anything backlight worries me a little, and there are actually three
> changes bundled into one patch here:
> 1. Changing bd->props.state and bd->props.fb_blank only when use_count
> changes from 0->1 or 1->0.
> 2. Calling backlight_update_status() only with the above change, and not
> on all notifier callbacks.
> 3. Setting bd->props.fb_blank always to either FB_BLANK_UNBLANK or
> FB_BLANK_POWERDOWN instead of *(int *)evdata->data.
> The rationale in the commit message seems plausible, and AFAICT the code
> does what it says on the box, so for that (and for that alone) you can
> have my
> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> *BUT* it would be laborous to figure out whether this change in
> behaviour might regress some drivers. I'm just punting on that. And that
> brings us back to the three changes above - in a bisect POV it might be
> helpful to split the patch up. Up to the maintainers.
I agree with Jani Nikula's opinion.
Please split this patch into three patches as above mentioned.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/