| Message ID | 20230109204758.610400-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] backlight: pwm_bl: configure pwm only once per backlight toggle | expand |
Hello Daniel, On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 04:26:14PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:47:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Most but not all PWMs drive the PWM pin to its inactive state when > > disabled. Rely on the lowlevel PWM implementation to implement > > duty_cycle = 0 in an energy efficient way and don't disable the PWM. > > I'm a little worried about this one. > > I thought the PWM APIs allow the duty cycle to be rounded up or down > slightly during the apply. In my book only rounding down is correct, but in practise there is some deviation. Nearly all PWMs can implement a zero duty cycle. Those that cannot but emit a constant inactive signal when disabled are expected to disable when .duty_cycle = 0 is requested. (And for those that can neither implement a zero duty_cycle nor emit the inactive level (not sure there is any) all bets are lost with and without my patch.) So if this case will be hit (and noticed) this is fixable. However there are hardware PWMs that just freeze in their current state when disabled (e.g. mxs). That's why .duty_cycle=0 + .enabled=true is the safer bet. Only disable a PWM if you don't rely on the output state. See also commit 80a22fde803af6f390be49ee5ced6ee75595ba05. > So when you say "rely on the lowlevel to implement duty_cycle = 0 to..." > is it confirmed that this is true (and that all PWMs *can* implement > a duty_cycle of 0 without rounding up)? The scenario I had in mind that can realistically go wrong here is that a lowlevel driver that has the property that the inactive level is emitted for a disabled HW doesn't actually disable when .duty_cycle=0 is requested and so might consume slightly more energy. But I'm confident my patch is an improvement and I don't expect regressions. (Famous last words :-) I suggest to amend the commit log and add something like: If this change results in a regression, the bug is in the lowlevel pwm driver. Best regards Uwe
diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c index d0b22158cd70..0509fecd5715 100644 --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c @@ -40,10 +40,8 @@ struct pwm_bl_data { static void pwm_backlight_power_on(struct pwm_bl_data *pb) { - struct pwm_state state; int err; - pwm_get_state(pb->pwm, &state); if (pb->enabled) return; @@ -51,9 +49,6 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_on(struct pwm_bl_data *pb) if (err < 0) dev_err(pb->dev, "failed to enable power supply\n"); - state.enabled = true; - pwm_apply_state(pb->pwm, &state); - if (pb->post_pwm_on_delay) msleep(pb->post_pwm_on_delay); @@ -65,9 +60,6 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_on(struct pwm_bl_data *pb) static void pwm_backlight_power_off(struct pwm_bl_data *pb) { - struct pwm_state state; - - pwm_get_state(pb->pwm, &state); if (!pb->enabled) return; @@ -77,28 +69,21 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_off(struct pwm_bl_data *pb) if (pb->pwm_off_delay) msleep(pb->pwm_off_delay); - state.enabled = false; - state.duty_cycle = 0; - pwm_apply_state(pb->pwm, &state); - regulator_disable(pb->power_supply); pb->enabled = false; } -static int compute_duty_cycle(struct pwm_bl_data *pb, int brightness) +static int compute_duty_cycle(struct pwm_bl_data *pb, int brightness, struct pwm_state *state) { unsigned int lth = pb->lth_brightness; - struct pwm_state state; u64 duty_cycle; - pwm_get_state(pb->pwm, &state); - if (pb->levels) duty_cycle = pb->levels[brightness]; else duty_cycle = brightness; - duty_cycle *= state.period - lth; + duty_cycle *= state->period - lth; do_div(duty_cycle, pb->scale); return duty_cycle + lth; @@ -115,11 +100,18 @@ static int pwm_backlight_update_status(struct backlight_device *bl) if (brightness > 0) { pwm_get_state(pb->pwm, &state); - state.duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness); + state.duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness, &state); + state.enabled = true; pwm_apply_state(pb->pwm, &state); + pwm_backlight_power_on(pb); } else { pwm_backlight_power_off(pb); + + pwm_get_state(pb->pwm, &state); + state.enabled = false; + state.duty_cycle = 0; + pwm_apply_state(pb->pwm, &state); } if (pb->notify_after)
When the function pwm_backlight_update_status() was called with brightness > 0, pwm_get_state() was called twice (once directly and once in compute_duty_cycle). Also pwm_apply_state() was called twice (once in pwm_backlight_power_on() and once directly). Optimize this to do both calls only once. Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> --- drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 28 ++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) base-commit: 1b929c02afd37871d5afb9d498426f83432e71c2 prerequisite-patch-id: a0c7497a32092d284bc47eda60e4b3690338ba6e