On 09/03/2018 11:53 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> +static int pattern_trig_start_pattern(struct led_classdev *led_cdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct pattern_trig_data *data = led_cdev->trigger_data;
>>> +
>>> + if (!data->npatterns)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + if (data->is_hw_pattern) {
>>> + return led_cdev->pattern_set(led_cdev, data->patterns,
>>> + data->npatterns, data->repeat);
>>> + }
>>
>> I have doubts here if it is a good idea to enforce array of tuples
>> as a generic interface for all hw_patterns. It may not fit well for
>> every hw pattern engine. It seems that the only feasible solution will
>> be allowing drivers to come up with their own interfaces, i.e. the
>> approach you proposed at first for your driver. It seems that the
>> ledtrig-pattern with software pattern mechanism will be just
>> a nice side effect of this series :-)
>>
>> Unless someone will propose a better solution.
>
> I believe array of tuples will work for everyone. It is just a LED, it
> can change intensity over time.
We have an example of different semantics in case of hw pattern
for leds-sc27xx-bltc.c, from this patch set.
Proposed hw_pattern ABI documentation:
+What: /sys/class/leds/<led>/hw_pattern
+Date: September 2018
+KernelVersion: 4.20
+Description:
+ Specify a hardware pattern for the SC27XX LED. For the SC27XX
+ LED controller, it only supports 4 hardware patterns to configure
+ the low time, rise time, high time and fall time for the breathing
+ mode, and each stage duration unit is 125ms. So the format of
+ the hardware pattern values should be:
+ "brightness_1 duration_1 brightness_2 duration_2 brightness_3
+ duration_3 brightness_4 duration_4".
In this case low time and high time can be easily described with
use of the proposed [brightness delta_t] tuples. It is not equally
obvious in case of rise time and fall time.
I can imagine hw pattern that would require defining blink rate
over period of time, or blink rate during rise/fall time - in the
latter case we would have odd number of pattern components. Probably
it wouldn't be a big deal, we'd need one "padding" value, but still
there's room for improvement IMHO.
>> We need a broader consensus here. I'd like to hear Pavel's opinion,
>> since he's been always in favor of common pattern interface, and
>> inspired this work.
>
> I believe Baolin did good work here. I believe it will cover most, if
> not all, hardware engines out there. I think we should merge it, and
> see what happens -- it should be good enough.
>
> (Yes, there's still more work to do, but that will be stuff like RGB
> LED synchronization.)
>
> (And yes, one of the LED chip has pattern engine that can compute
> prime numbers on its own. I don't expect to support
> _that_. Fortunately, nobody but me is likely to want that pattern, so
> we are still okay :-)
>
> https://gitlab.com/tui/tui/blob/master/ofone/tests.notcc/primes.nc
>
> )
> Pavel
>
--
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski
