On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:44:48AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: > On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:58 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thursday 24 October 2013 13:05:25 Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:38:59AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 23 October 2013 22:20:12 Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 05:51:13PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > > > > On 10/22/2013 09:01 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:34:45PM +0200, Jean-Christophe > > > > > > > > > > > > > PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'm sorry but the blacklight descibe in DT have nothing to do > > > > > > >> with the common pratice that the current driver have today > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not at all what I said. What I said was that the majority > > > > > > > of backlight drivers currently default to turning the backlight on > > > > > > > when probed. Therefore I think it would be consistent if this > > > > > > > driver did the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also said that I don't think it's a very good default, but at the > > > > > > > same time we can't just go and change the default behaviour at will > > > > > > > because people may rely on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > It may well be reasonable to change the default behaviour for devices > > > > > > instantiated from DT. If it's not possible to instantiate the device > > > > > > from DT yet, then it's not possible for anyone to be relying on the > > > > > > default behaviour yet, since there is none. So, perhaps the default > > > > > > could be: > > > > > > > > > > > > * If device instantiated from a board file, default to on, for > > > > > > backwards-compatibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > * If device instantiated from DT, there is no backwards compatibility > > > > > > to be concerned with, since this is a new feature, hence default to > > > > > > off, since we think that's the correct thing to do. > > > > > > > > > > I actually had a patch to do precisely that. However I then realized > > > > > that people have actually been using pwm-backlight in DT for a while > > > > > already and therefore may be relying on that behaviour as well. > > > > > > > > > > It also isn't really an issue of DT vs. non-DT. The simple fact is that > > > > > besides the backlight driver there's usually no other code that enables > > > > > a backlight on boot. The only way to do so that I know of is using the > > > > > DRM panel patches that I've been working on. > > > > > > > > I would very much welcome a refactoring of the backlight code that would > > > > remove the fbdev dependency and hook backlights to panel drivers. That's > > > > something I wanted to work on myself, but that I pushed back after CDF :-) > > > > > > Yeah, that would certainly be very welcome. But it's also a pretty > > > daunting job since there are a whole lot of devices out there that > > > aren't easy to test because, well, they're pretty old and chances > > > are that nobody that actually has one is around. > > > > > > But I guess that we can always try to solve it on a best effort basis, > > > though. Perhaps things can even be done in a backwards-compatible way. > > > I'm thinking for instance that we could introduce a new property, say > > > .enable, but keep any of the others suhc as state, power, fb_blank for > > > backwards-compatibility. Perhaps even emulate them for a while until > > > we've gone and cleaned up all users. > > > > That would work with me. I don't think we need more than a best effort > > approach to porting existing backlight drivers to the new model. When it comes > > to compatibility with the current interface, I'd like to move the > > compatibility code to the core instead of leaving it in the individual drivers > > if possible. > > I agree with you. > Moving the compatibility code to the core from the individual drivers > looks good. :-) > > > > > > Or is there still a reason to have more than a single bit for backlight > > > state? I don't know any hardware that actually makes a difference > > > between FB_BLANK_NORMAL, FB_BLANK_VSYNC_SUSPEND, FB_BLANK_HSYNC_SUSPEND > > > or FB_BLANK_POWERDOWN. > > On Exynos side, I have never seen that FB_BLANK_VSYNC_SUSPEND, > FB_BLANK_HSYNC_SUSPEND are used for controlling display panels or > Display controllers. > > However, I heard that FB_BLANK_VSYNC_SUSPEND, FB_BLANK_HSYNC_SUSPEND are > used for some monitors. I think that those may make sense in the context of fbdev, and looking at some fbdev drivers seems to substantiate that. However, I don't think backlights have any such capability. I mean they are either on or off, right? There's no such thing as partially off, or partially on. How would a backlight behave differently if the panel was in HSYNC suspend mode or VSYNC suspend mode? Thierry
Attachment:
pgpTUKvAJ7hdC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
