Re: [PATCHv2] backlight: pwm_bl: disable PWM when 'duty_cycle' is zero
From: Phil Reid
Date: Mon Jun 20 2016 - 02:36:17 EST
On 20/06/2016 14:21, Lothar WaÃmann wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:17:19 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016, Lothar WaÃmann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:54:49 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Lothar WaÃmann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:44:49 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Lothar WaÃmann wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:51:25 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016, Lothar WaÃmann wrote:
'brightness' is usually an index into a table of duty_cycle values,
where the value at index 0 may well be non-zero
(tegra30-apalis-eval.dts and tegra30-colibri-eval-v3.dts are real-life
examples).
Thus brightness == 0 does not necessarily mean that the PWM output
will be inactive.
Check for 'duty_cycle == 0' rather than 'brightness == 0' to decide
whether to disable the PWM.
Signed-off-by: Lothar WaÃmann <LW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes wrt. v1:
- update binding docs to reflect the change
.../devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt | 9 ++++++---
drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
index 764db86..95fa8a9 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
@@ -4,10 +4,13 @@ Required properties:
- compatible: "pwm-backlight"
- pwms: OF device-tree PWM specification (see PWM binding[0])
- brightness-levels: Array of distinct brightness levels. Typically these
- are in the range from 0 to 255, but any range starting at 0 will do.
+ are in the range from 0 to 255, but any range will do.
The actual brightness level (PWM duty cycle) will be interpolated
- from these values. 0 means a 0% duty cycle (darkest/off), while the
- last value in the array represents a 100% duty cycle (brightest).
+ from these values. 0 means a 0% duty cycle, while the highest value in
+ the array represents a 100% duty cycle.
+ The range may be in reverse order (starting with the maximum duty cycle
+ value) to create a PWM signal with the 100% duty cycle representing
+ minimum and 0% duty cycle maximum brigthness.
- default-brightness-level: the default brightness level (index into the
array defined by the "brightness-levels" property)
- power-supply: regulator for supply voltage
diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
index b2b366b..80b2b52 100644
--- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
+++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
@@ -103,8 +103,8 @@ static int pwm_backlight_update_status(struct backlight_device *bl)
if (pb->notify)
brightness = pb->notify(pb->dev, brightness);
- if (brightness > 0) {
- duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness);
+ duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness);
+ if (duty_cycle > 0) {
How does this work in the aforementioned:
"The range may be in reverse order"
... case? Surely when duty_cycle is when the screen should be at it's
brightest? Wouldn't it confuse the user if they turn their brightness
*up* and the screen goes *off*?
Assuming that the PWM output is inactive (LOW) when the duty_cycle is
set to zero, there will be no difference between operating the PWM at
duty_cycle 0 or disabling it.
Currently, the screen will go bright when it should be off in this
case.
It sounds like we need something that lets the framework know if
duty_cycle = MAX is the brightest or if duty_cycle = 0 is. Either way
someone is going to get screwed by this logic.
The backlight framework does not (and does not need to) know anything
about PWM duty cycles. Its 'brightness' values are consistently 0 ==
dark, max == brightest in either case.
What I'm getting at is; by the look of the documentation, the
brightest setting can either be a duty cycle of 0 or 255. So what
happens with your new semantics when the duty cycle of 0 represents
the brightest setting and you reach 0? Didn't you just turn the
backlight off?
As mentioned earlier, disabling the PWM has generally the same result as
setting the duty cycle to 0. The current behaviour is broken in this
case, since setting brightness to 0 with a non-zero duty_cycle as the
first element of brightness-levels, the PWM will be disabled rather than
switched to the given duty cycle.
Disabling the PWM should have the same effect as setting the duty cycle
to 0, so it is safe to check for duty_cycle == 0 to decide whether to
disable the PWM.
I agree with this. BUT, that's not what you're doing is it?
Look at the code you're trying to write:
duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness);
if (duty_cycle > 0) {
pwm_config(pb->pwm, duty_cycle, pb->period);
pwm_backlight_power_on(pb, brightness);
} else
pwm_backlight_power_off(pb);
Let's say duty_cycle == 0. In some cases this can mean "turn
brightness up to the *maximum*", but with your new logic you just
turned the backlight *off*.
Huh? Please think again!
- duty_cycle == 0 means a CONSTANT LOW level on the PWM output. Agreed?
- Disabling the PWM usually achieves a CONSTANT LOW level on the PWM
output. Agreed?
So duty_cycle == 0 <=> disable the PWM no matter whether the backlight
is darkest or brightest at this duty cycle setting!
The backlight controller does not know anything about the value of the
'brightness' variable in the code but only sees the 'duty_cycle' value.
When brightness == 0 translates into max. duty cycle, the original code
will switch the PWM OFF (which is equivalent to a ZERO duty cycle), when
it rather should operate at the max. duty cycle.
When duty_cycle is '0', this is equivalent to the PWM output being at
constant LOW level which is the same as being switched OFF in the usual
cases.
When the brightness is maximum at duty_cycle == 0, that means, that the
backlight is brightest when the control pin is constantly LOW, which
is usually the case when the PWM is disabled. This is exactly what the
patch does achieve!
With the current code a backlight that is brightest at a constant '0'
level will turn to max. brightness rather than off when selecting
brightness level 0 (max. PWM duty cycle).
Conversely, let's say duty_cycle == 255. In some cases this can mean
"turn the brightness to the *lowest* setting" i.e. *off*. Well your
logic just turned the backlight *on*.
OK. Let's try a sequence of brightness levels and duty cycles:
For simplicity assume a range of brightness levels from 0..100, so
that the 'brightness' value directly represents the duty cycle of the
PWM. So either: brightness == 0 => duty cycle == 0% => constant LOW
Or: brightnes == 0 => duty cycle == 100% => constant HIGH.
Normal range with current and patched code:
brightness duty_cycle
0 0 PWM disabled => constant LOW
1 1 PWM active
...
100 100 PWM active => constant HIGH
Inverted range (backlight brightest at duty cycle 0)
Current code:
brightness duty_cycle
0 100 PWM disabled (OUTPUT CONSTANT LOW!)
1 99 PWM active with near full duty cycle
...
99 1 PWM active with near ZERO duty cycle
100 0 PWM active with 0% duty cycle => constant LOW
With my patch:
brightness duty_cycle
0 100 PWM active with 100% duty cycle (constant HIGH)
1 99 PWM active with near full duty cycle
...
99 1 PWM active with near ZERO duty cycle
100 0 PWM disabled => constant LOW
pwm_backlight_power_off() disables the regulator.
So the supply to Backlight disappears, regardless of constant low...
--
Regards
Phil Reid