From: Jeff LaBundy <jeff@labundy.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Cc: "Traut Manuel LCPF-CH" <Manuel.Traut@mt.com>,
"linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
"Frieder Schrempf" <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>,
"Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
"linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: AW: EXTERNAL - [PATCH] Input: pwm-beeper - Support volume setting via sysfs
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 09:25:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZGJA2M+V8ualidHH@nixie71> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a5293af4-8d02-ed8f-52d1-722c71d47f37@denx.de>
Hi Marek and Traut,
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 03:36:02PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 5/15/23 08:50, Traut Manuel LCPF-CH wrote:
> > Hi Marek,
>
> Hi,
>
> > > The PWM beeper volume can be controlled by adjusting the PWM duty cycle, expose volume setting via sysfs, so users can make the beeper quieter.
> > > This patch adds sysfs attribute 'volume' in range 0..50000, i.e. from 0 to 50% in 1/1000th of percent steps, this resolution should be sufficient.
> > >
> > > The reason for 50000 cap on volume or PWM duty cycle is because duty cycle above 50% again reduces the loudness, the PWM wave form is inverted > wave form of the one for duty cycle below 50% and the beeper gets quieter the closer the setting is to 100% . Hence, 50% cap where the wave form yields the loudest result.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> > > ---
> > > An alternative option would be to extend the userspace input ABI, e.g. by using SND_TONE top 16bits to encode the duty cycle in 0..50000 range, and bottom 16bit to encode the existing frequency in Hz . Since frequency in Hz is likely to be below some 25 kHz for audible bell, this fits in 16bits just fine. Thoughts ?
> >
> > I tend to not change existing user-space interfaces. I would prefer to have an additional event or using sysfs.
>
> I am increasingly concerned about the race condition between change of
> volume (via sysfs) and frequency (via SND_TONE) . So I would be banking
> toward additional event, like SND_TONE_WITH_VOLUME or something along those
> lines.
This is just my $.02, but I don't see anything wrong with proposing an
_additive_ change to the ABI such as this. My only concern is that this
kind of change seems useful to any effect (e.g. SND_BEEP) and not limited
to only tones. Unless volume adjustment is less useful for those?
>
> > > ---
> > > NOTE: This uses approach similar to [1], except it is much simpler.
> > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-input/cover/20230201152128.614439-1-manuel.traut@mt.com/
> >
> > This one is more complex, because the mapping between duty cycle and volume is not linear. Probably it depends also on the used beeper hardware which values are doing a significant change in volume. Therefore the patchset introduced a mapping between volume levels and duty cycle times in the device-tree to allow user-space applications to control the beeper volume hardware independently.
>
> I wonder whether this mapping shouldn't be considered policy and left to
> userspace to deal with, instead of swamping the kernel or DT with it ?
I agree that the kernel need not try and linearize the values; in fact LEDs
already have the same problem. I still feel however that imposing a unique
maximum value (e.g. 50,000) is inappropriate because the range should remain
the same regardless of the underlying HW implementation (PWM, class A/B, etc.).
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut
Kind regards,
Jeff LaBundy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-15 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-12 18:55 [PATCH] Input: pwm-beeper - Support volume setting via sysfs Marek Vasut
2023-05-13 1:12 ` Jeff LaBundy
2023-05-13 1:51 ` Marek Vasut
2023-05-13 21:02 ` Marek Vasut
2023-07-31 5:36 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2023-07-31 6:21 ` Takashi Iwai
2023-07-31 11:49 ` Marek Vasut
2023-07-31 12:15 ` Takashi Iwai
2023-07-31 14:05 ` Marek Vasut
2023-07-31 14:20 ` Takashi Iwai
2023-07-31 14:36 ` Marek Vasut
2023-07-31 16:24 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2023-07-31 17:49 ` Marek Vasut
2023-08-01 2:56 ` Jeff LaBundy
2023-08-01 6:11 ` Takashi Iwai
2023-08-01 11:38 ` Marek Vasut
2023-08-01 12:25 ` Takashi Iwai
2023-08-01 7:28 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2023-08-01 11:51 ` Marek Vasut
2023-08-11 4:19 ` Jeff LaBundy
2023-08-11 7:52 ` Takashi Iwai
2023-08-11 10:47 ` Traut Manuel LCPF-CH
2023-08-15 21:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2023-08-17 10:50 ` Marek Vasut
2023-08-11 12:39 ` John Watts
2023-08-14 2:26 ` Marek Vasut
2023-05-15 6:50 ` AW: EXTERNAL - " Traut Manuel LCPF-CH
2023-05-15 13:36 ` Marek Vasut
2023-05-15 14:25 ` Jeff LaBundy [this message]
2023-05-15 17:27 ` Marek Vasut
2023-05-15 15:24 ` AW: AW: " Traut Manuel LCPF-CH
2023-05-15 17:28 ` Marek Vasut
2023-06-14 6:45 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2023-06-14 9:30 ` Marek Vasut
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZGJA2M+V8ualidHH@nixie71 \
--to=jeff@labundy.com \
--cc=Manuel.Traut@mt.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=frieder.schrempf@kontron.de \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).