Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] backlight: pwm_bl: compute brightness of LED linearly to human eye.

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>,
	Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>,
	Brian Norris <briannorris@google.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Alexandru Stan <amstan@google.com>,
	linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] backlight: pwm_bl: compute brightness of LED linearly to human eye.
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 23:02:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190608210226.GB2359@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190607220947.GR40515@google.com>

Hi!

> > +	 * Note that this method is based on empirical testing on different
> > +	 * devices with PWM of 8 and 16 bits of resolution.
> > +	 */
> > +	n = period;
> > +	while (n) {
> > +		counter += n % 2;
> > +		n >>= 1;
> > +	}
> 
> I don't quite follow the heuristics above. Are you sure the number of
> PWM bits can be infered from the period? What if the period value (in
> ns) doesn't directly correspond to a register value? And even if it
> did, counting the number of set bits (the above loops is a
> re-implementation of ffs()) doesn't really result in the dividers
> mentioned in the comment. E.g. a period of 32768 ns (0x8000) results
> in a divider of 1, i.e. 32768 brighness levels.
> 
> On veyron minnie the period is 1000000 ns, which results in 142858
> levels (1000000 / 7)!
> 
> Not sure if there is a clean solution using heuristics, a DT property
> specifying the number of levels could be an alternative. This could
> also be useful to limit the number of (mostly) redundant levels, even
> the intended max of 4096 seems pretty high.
> 
> Another (not directly related) observation is that on minnie the
> actual brightness at a nominal 50% is close to 0 (duty cycle ~3%). I
> haven't tested with other devices, but I wonder if it would make
> sense to have an option to drop the bottom N% of levels, since the
> near 0 brightness in the lower 50% probably isn't very useful in most
> use cases, but maybe it looks different on other devices.

Eye percieves logarithm(duty cycle), mostly, and I find very low brightness
levels quite useful when trying to use machine in dark room.

But yes, specifying if brightness is linear or exponential would be quite
useful.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html