Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1682149 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us property

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us  property Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us  property Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-07-06 11:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us  property Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> - 2017-07-06 11:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us  property Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 11:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us  property Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-07-06 12:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us  property Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> - 2017-07-06 12:00 +0200

#1682149 — Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] pwm-backlight: add support for pwm-delay-us property

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> From: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
> 
> Some panels (i.e. N116BGE-L41), in their power sequence specifications,
> request a delay between set the PWM signal and enable the backlight and
> between clear the PWM signal and disable the backlight. Add support for
> the new pwm-delay-us property to meet the timing.
> 
> Note that this patch inverts current sequence. Before this patch the
> enable signal was set before the PWM signal and vice-versa on power off.
> 
> I assumed that this sequence was wrong, at least it is on different panel
> datasheets that I checked, so I inverted the sequence to follow:
> 
>   On power on, set the PWM signal, wait, and set the LED_EN signal.
>   On power off, clear the LED_EN signal, wait, and stop the PWM signal.

I think this should be two separate patches to make it easier to revert
the inverted sequence should it prove to regress on other panels.

Two more comments below.

> Signed-off-by: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
>  - As suggested by Daniel Thompson
>    - Do not assume power-on delay and power-off delay will be the same
>  - Move the check of dt property to the parse dt function.
> 
> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/28/219
> 
>  drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
>  include/linux/pwm_backlight.h    |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> index 002f1ce..0f5470e 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>   * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>   */
>  
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>  #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>  #include <linux/gpio.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
> @@ -35,6 +36,7 @@ struct pwm_bl_data {
>  	struct gpio_desc	*enable_gpio;
>  	unsigned int		scale;
>  	bool			legacy;
> +	unsigned int		pwm_delay[2];
>  	int			(*notify)(struct device *,
>  					  int brightness);
>  	void			(*notify_after)(struct device *,
> @@ -54,10 +56,14 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_on(struct pwm_bl_data *pb, int brightness)
>  	if (err < 0)
>  		dev_err(pb->dev, "failed to enable power supply\n");
>  
> +	pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
> +
> +	if (pb->pwm_delay[0])
> +		usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[0], pb->pwm_delay[0] + 2000);

2000 us is kind of arbitrary. What if pwm_delay[0] is on the order of 20
us? Making the delay 2 ms longer (in the worst case) seems somewhat
excessive. Why not something like:

	usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[0], pb->pwm_delay[0] * 2);

?

> +
>  	if (pb->enable_gpio)
>  		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pb->enable_gpio, 1);
>  
> -	pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
>  	pb->enabled = true;
>  }
>  
> @@ -66,12 +72,15 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_off(struct pwm_bl_data *pb)
>  	if (!pb->enabled)
>  		return;
>  
> -	pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);
> -	pwm_disable(pb->pwm);
> -
>  	if (pb->enable_gpio)
>  		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pb->enable_gpio, 0);
>  
> +	if (pb->pwm_delay[1])
> +		usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[1], pb->pwm_delay[1] + 2000);
> +
> +	pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);
> +	pwm_disable(pb->pwm);
> +
>  	regulator_disable(pb->power_supply);
>  	pb->enabled = false;
>  }
> @@ -174,6 +183,12 @@ static int pwm_backlight_parse_dt(struct device *dev,
>  		data->max_brightness--;
>  	}
>  
> +	/* read pwm to enable pre/post delays from DT property */

This comment is confusing. This isn't reading anything from the PWM.

Thierry

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682224

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu 2017-07-06 10:01:32, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > From: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
> > 
> > Some panels (i.e. N116BGE-L41), in their power sequence specifications,
> > request a delay between set the PWM signal and enable the backlight and
> > between clear the PWM signal and disable the backlight. Add support for
> > the new pwm-delay-us property to meet the timing.
> > 
> > Note that this patch inverts current sequence. Before this patch the
> > enable signal was set before the PWM signal and vice-versa on power off.
> > 
> > I assumed that this sequence was wrong, at least it is on different panel
> > datasheets that I checked, so I inverted the sequence to follow:
> > 
> >   On power on, set the PWM signal, wait, and set the LED_EN signal.
> >   On power off, clear the LED_EN signal, wait, and stop the PWM signal.
> 
> I think this should be two separate patches to make it easier to revert
> the inverted sequence should it prove to regress on other panels.

Don't make this overly complex. This is trivial. No need to split it
into more patches.


> Two more comments below.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
> > ---
> > Changes since v1:
> >  - As suggested by Daniel Thompson
> >    - Do not assume power-on delay and power-off delay will be the same
> >  - Move the check of dt property to the parse dt function.
> > 
> > v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/28/219
> > 
> >  drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  include/linux/pwm_backlight.h    |  1 +
> >  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > index 002f1ce..0f5470e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> >   * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >   */
> >  
> > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> >  #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> >  #include <linux/gpio.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > @@ -35,6 +36,7 @@ struct pwm_bl_data {
> >  	struct gpio_desc	*enable_gpio;
> >  	unsigned int		scale;
> >  	bool			legacy;
> > +	unsigned int		pwm_delay[2];
> >  	int			(*notify)(struct device *,
> >  					  int brightness);
> >  	void			(*notify_after)(struct device *,
> > @@ -54,10 +56,14 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_on(struct pwm_bl_data *pb, int brightness)
> >  	if (err < 0)
> >  		dev_err(pb->dev, "failed to enable power supply\n");
> >  
> > +	pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
> > +
> > +	if (pb->pwm_delay[0])
> > +		usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[0], pb->pwm_delay[0] + 2000);
> 
> 2000 us is kind of arbitrary. What if pwm_delay[0] is on the order of 20
> us? Making the delay 2 ms longer (in the worst case) seems somewhat
> excessive. Why not something like:
> 
> 	usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[0], pb->pwm_delay[0] * 2);
> 
> ?
> 
> > +
> >  	if (pb->enable_gpio)
> >  		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pb->enable_gpio, 1);
> >  
> > -	pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
> >  	pb->enabled = true;
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -66,12 +72,15 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_off(struct pwm_bl_data *pb)
> >  	if (!pb->enabled)
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);
> > -	pwm_disable(pb->pwm);
> > -
> >  	if (pb->enable_gpio)
> >  		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pb->enable_gpio, 0);
> >  
> > +	if (pb->pwm_delay[1])
> > +		usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[1], pb->pwm_delay[1] + 2000);
> > +
> > +	pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);
> > +	pwm_disable(pb->pwm);
> > +
> >  	regulator_disable(pb->power_supply);
> >  	pb->enabled = false;
> >  }
> > @@ -174,6 +183,12 @@ static int pwm_backlight_parse_dt(struct device *dev,
> >  		data->max_brightness--;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/* read pwm to enable pre/post delays from DT property */
> 
> This comment is confusing. This isn't reading anything from the PWM.
> 
> Thierry



-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682226

On 06/07/17 10:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2017-07-06 10:01:32, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
>>> From: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
>>>
>>> Some panels (i.e. N116BGE-L41), in their power sequence specifications,
>>> request a delay between set the PWM signal and enable the backlight and
>>> between clear the PWM signal and disable the backlight. Add support for
>>> the new pwm-delay-us property to meet the timing.
>>>
>>> Note that this patch inverts current sequence. Before this patch the
>>> enable signal was set before the PWM signal and vice-versa on power off.
>>>
>>> I assumed that this sequence was wrong, at least it is on different panel
>>> datasheets that I checked, so I inverted the sequence to follow:
>>>
>>>    On power on, set the PWM signal, wait, and set the LED_EN signal.
>>>    On power off, clear the LED_EN signal, wait, and stop the PWM signal.
>>
>> I think this should be two separate patches to make it easier to revert
>> the inverted sequence should it prove to regress on other panels.
> 
> Don't make this overly complex. This is trivial. No need to split it
> into more patches.

Agree. IMHO getting the code that reads the (optional) new parameter 
correct is the best way to manage risk of regression since in most cases 
the delay will be skipped anyway.


Daniel.


> 
> 
>> Two more comments below.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes since v1:
>>>   - As suggested by Daniel Thompson
>>>     - Do not assume power-on delay and power-off delay will be the same
>>>   - Move the check of dt property to the parse dt function.
>>>
>>> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/28/219
>>>
>>>   drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>   include/linux/pwm_backlight.h    |  1 +
>>>   2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
>>> index 002f1ce..0f5470e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>>    * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>    */
>>>   
>>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>>>   #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>>>   #include <linux/gpio.h>
>>>   #include <linux/module.h>
>>> @@ -35,6 +36,7 @@ struct pwm_bl_data {
>>>   	struct gpio_desc	*enable_gpio;
>>>   	unsigned int		scale;
>>>   	bool			legacy;
>>> +	unsigned int		pwm_delay[2];
>>>   	int			(*notify)(struct device *,
>>>   					  int brightness);
>>>   	void			(*notify_after)(struct device *,
>>> @@ -54,10 +56,14 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_on(struct pwm_bl_data *pb, int brightness)
>>>   	if (err < 0)
>>>   		dev_err(pb->dev, "failed to enable power supply\n");
>>>   
>>> +	pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
>>> +
>>> +	if (pb->pwm_delay[0])
>>> +		usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[0], pb->pwm_delay[0] + 2000);
>>
>> 2000 us is kind of arbitrary. What if pwm_delay[0] is on the order of 20
>> us? Making the delay 2 ms longer (in the worst case) seems somewhat
>> excessive. Why not something like:
>>
>> 	usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[0], pb->pwm_delay[0] * 2);
>>
>> ?
>>
>>> +
>>>   	if (pb->enable_gpio)
>>>   		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pb->enable_gpio, 1);
>>>   
>>> -	pwm_enable(pb->pwm);
>>>   	pb->enabled = true;
>>>   }
>>>   
>>> @@ -66,12 +72,15 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_off(struct pwm_bl_data *pb)
>>>   	if (!pb->enabled)
>>>   		return;
>>>   
>>> -	pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);
>>> -	pwm_disable(pb->pwm);
>>> -
>>>   	if (pb->enable_gpio)
>>>   		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pb->enable_gpio, 0);
>>>   
>>> +	if (pb->pwm_delay[1])
>>> +		usleep_range(pb->pwm_delay[1], pb->pwm_delay[1] + 2000);
>>> +
>>> +	pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);
>>> +	pwm_disable(pb->pwm);
>>> +
>>>   	regulator_disable(pb->power_supply);
>>>   	pb->enabled = false;
>>>   }
>>> @@ -174,6 +183,12 @@ static int pwm_backlight_parse_dt(struct device *dev,
>>>   		data->max_brightness--;
>>>   	}
>>>   
>>> +	/* read pwm to enable pre/post delays from DT property */
>>
>> This comment is confusing. This isn't reading anything from the PWM.
>>
>> Thierry
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682243

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 06/07/17 10:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Thu 2017-07-06 10:01:32, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > > > From: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Some panels (i.e. N116BGE-L41), in their power sequence specifications,
> > > > request a delay between set the PWM signal and enable the backlight and
> > > > between clear the PWM signal and disable the backlight. Add support for
> > > > the new pwm-delay-us property to meet the timing.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that this patch inverts current sequence. Before this patch the
> > > > enable signal was set before the PWM signal and vice-versa on power off.
> > > > 
> > > > I assumed that this sequence was wrong, at least it is on different panel
> > > > datasheets that I checked, so I inverted the sequence to follow:
> > > > 
> > > >    On power on, set the PWM signal, wait, and set the LED_EN signal.
> > > >    On power off, clear the LED_EN signal, wait, and stop the PWM signal.
> > > 
> > > I think this should be two separate patches to make it easier to revert
> > > the inverted sequence should it prove to regress on other panels.
> > 
> > Don't make this overly complex. This is trivial. No need to split it
> > into more patches.
> 
> Agree. IMHO getting the code that reads the (optional) new parameter correct
> is the best way to manage risk of regression since in most cases the delay
> will be skipped anyway.

The potential regression that I'm referring to would be caused by
inversing the sequence (GPIO enable -> PWM enable). That's completely
unrelated to the delays introduced by this patch. Many boards use this
driver and they've been running with the old sequence for many years.
Granted, it's fairly unlikely to regress, but it's still a possibility.

Given that both changes are logically separate, I think separate patches
are totally appropriate. I also don't think that this would overly
complicate things.

Thierry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682289

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi!

On Thu 2017-07-06 11:24:48, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On 06/07/17 10:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Thu 2017-07-06 10:01:32, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > > > > From: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some panels (i.e. N116BGE-L41), in their power sequence specifications,
> > > > > request a delay between set the PWM signal and enable the backlight and
> > > > > between clear the PWM signal and disable the backlight. Add support for
> > > > > the new pwm-delay-us property to meet the timing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Note that this patch inverts current sequence. Before this patch the
> > > > > enable signal was set before the PWM signal and vice-versa on power off.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I assumed that this sequence was wrong, at least it is on different panel
> > > > > datasheets that I checked, so I inverted the sequence to follow:
> > > > > 
> > > > >    On power on, set the PWM signal, wait, and set the LED_EN signal.
> > > > >    On power off, clear the LED_EN signal, wait, and stop the PWM signal.
> > > > 
> > > > I think this should be two separate patches to make it easier to revert
> > > > the inverted sequence should it prove to regress on other panels.
> > > 
> > > Don't make this overly complex. This is trivial. No need to split it
> > > into more patches.
> > 
> > Agree. IMHO getting the code that reads the (optional) new parameter correct
> > is the best way to manage risk of regression since in most cases the delay
> > will be skipped anyway.
> 
> The potential regression that I'm referring to would be caused by
> inversing the sequence (GPIO enable -> PWM enable). That's completely
> unrelated to the delays introduced by this patch. Many boards use this
> driver and they've been running with the old sequence for many years.
> Granted, it's fairly unlikely to regress, but it's still a
> possibility.
> 
> Given that both changes are logically separate, I think separate patches
> are totally appropriate. I also don't think that this would overly
> complicate things.

Ah, yes, you are right; should be two patches.

Best regards,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682295

On 06/07/17 10:24, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 10:17:18AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 06/07/17 10:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> On Thu 2017-07-06 10:01:32, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
>>>>> From: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some panels (i.e. N116BGE-L41), in their power sequence specifications,
>>>>> request a delay between set the PWM signal and enable the backlight and
>>>>> between clear the PWM signal and disable the backlight. Add support for
>>>>> the new pwm-delay-us property to meet the timing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that this patch inverts current sequence. Before this patch the
>>>>> enable signal was set before the PWM signal and vice-versa on power off.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assumed that this sequence was wrong, at least it is on different panel
>>>>> datasheets that I checked, so I inverted the sequence to follow:
>>>>>
>>>>>     On power on, set the PWM signal, wait, and set the LED_EN signal.
>>>>>     On power off, clear the LED_EN signal, wait, and stop the PWM signal.
>>>>
>>>> I think this should be two separate patches to make it easier to revert
>>>> the inverted sequence should it prove to regress on other panels.
>>>
>>> Don't make this overly complex. This is trivial. No need to split it
>>> into more patches.
>>
>> Agree. IMHO getting the code that reads the (optional) new parameter correct
>> is the best way to manage risk of regression since in most cases the delay
>> will be skipped anyway.
> 
> The potential regression that I'm referring to would be caused by
> inversing the sequence (GPIO enable -> PWM enable). That's completely
> unrelated to the delays introduced by this patch. Many boards use this
> driver and they've been running with the old sequence for many years.
> Granted, it's fairly unlikely to regress, but it's still a possibility.
> 
> Given that both changes are logically separate, I think separate patches
> are totally appropriate. I also don't think that this would overly
> complicate things.

... and you are right on both counts!

Thanks for the detailed reply.


Daniel.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web