Re: [PATCH v6 13/13] video: backlight: mt6370: Add MediaTek MT6370 support

[Daniel Thompson]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 07:28:48PM +0800, ChiaEn Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 5:31 PM Daniel Thompson
> <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> > > > Does the MT6372 support more steps than this? In other words does it use
> > > > a fourteen bit scale or does it use an 11-bit scale at a different
> > > > register location?
> > >
> > > Hi Daniel,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply.
> > > Yes, MT6372 can support 16384 steps and uses a 14-bit scale register
> > > location. But the maximum current of each
> > > channel of MT6372 is the same as MT6370 and MT6371, both 30mA.
> > > The main reason why MT6372 is designed this way is that one of the
> > > customers asked for a more delicate
> > > adjustment of the backlight brightness. But other customers actually
> > > do not have such requirements.
> > > Therefore, we designed it this way for maximum compatibility in software.
>
> Sorry for I used of the wrong word, I mean is 'driver', not
> higher-level software
>
> >
> > I don't think that is an acceptable approach for the upstream kernel.
> >
> > To be "compatible" with (broken) software this driver ends up reducing
> > the capability of the upstream kernel to the point it becomes unable to
> > meet requirements for delicate adjustment (requirements that were
> > sufficiently important to change the hardware design so you could meet
> > them).
>
> Originally, we just wanted to use one version of the driver to cover
> all the SubPMIC of the 6370 series(6370~6372).
> And, the users who use this series SubPMIC can directly apply this
> driver to drive the backlight device without knowing the underlying
> hardware.
> To achieve this goal, we have designed it to look like this.

You don't need a second driver to support two different values for
max-brightness. The same driver can support both ranges with nothing but
a small tweak during the driver probe function.


> ...
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (brightness) {
> > > > > +             brightness_val[0] = (brightness - 1) & MT6370_BL_DIM2_MASK;
> > > > > +             brightness_val[1] = (brightness - 1) >> fls(MT6370_BL_DIM2_MASK);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +             /*
> > > > > +              * To make MT6372 using 14 bits to control the brightness
> > > > > +              * backward compatible with 11 bits brightness control
> > > > > +              * (like MT6370 and MT6371 do), we left shift the value
> > > > > +              * and pad with 1 to remaining bits. Hence, the MT6372's
> > > > > +              * backlight brightness will be almost the same as MT6370's
> > > > > +              * and MT6371's.
> > > > > +              */
> > > > > +             if (priv->vid_type == MT6370_VID_6372) {
> > > > > +                     brightness_val[0] <<= MT6370_BL_DIM2_6372_SHIFT;
> > > > > +                     brightness_val[0] |= MT6370_BL_DUMMY_6372_MASK;
> > > > > +             }
> > > >
> > > > This somewhat depends on the answer to the first question above, but
> > > > what is the point of this shifting? If the range is 14-bit then the
> > > > driver should set max_brightness to 16384 and present the full range of
> > > > the MT6372 to the user.
> > >
> > > So should we make all 16384 steps of MT6372 available to users?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> > > Does that mean the DTS needs to be modified as well?
> >
> > Yes... the property to set initial brightness needs a 14-bit range.
> >
> > It would also be a good idea to discuss with the DT maintainers whether
> > you should introduce a second compatible string (ending 6372) in order
> > to allow the DT validation checks to detect accidental use of MT6372
> > ranges on MT6370 hardware.
>
> hmmm... I have just thought about it,
> maybe I can just modify the maximum value of default-brightness and
> max-brightness in DT to 16384,
> modify the description and add some comments.

What for?

All the other backlight drivers (there are >130 of them) expose the hardware
range[1]. Most userspaces will already know how to handle that (by reading
the max_brightness and, if it is recent enough, also the scale
properties in sysfs).

I'm still don't understand why one should fix a bug in the userspace by
implementing a hack in the driver.


[1] Well almost. The PWM backlight driver does contain support for
    dead-spot avoidance and to allow the adoption of exponential scale.
    However this  purpose of these is based on how PWM backlights work



> And then on the driver side,
> we can use mt6370_check_vendor_info( ) to determine whether it is MT6372.
> If no, then in mt6370_bl_update_status(), first brightness_val / 8 and then set.
> In mt6370_bl_get_brightness(), first brightness_val * 8 and then return;
>
> If I do this change, does this meet your requirements?

Not really.

It's still misleading a sophisticated userspace, which may make bad
rounding decisions for backlight animation, in order to support a broken
one.


> > > Or, for the reasons, I have just explained (just one customer has this
> > > requirement), then we do not make any changes for compatibility
> > > reasons?
> >
> > I'd be curious what the compatiblity reasons are. In other words what
> > software breaks?
>
> The reason is as above. We just hope the users who use this series SubPMIC can
> directly apply this driver to drive the backlight device without
> knowing the underlying hardware.
> Not software breaks.

As above, ignoring the max_brightness property is a bug in the
userspace. I'm still unclear why sending faked ranges to userspace
it a better solution than fixing the userspace.


Daniel.