We don't have to turn backlight on/off everytime a blanking or unblanking event comes because the backlight status may have already been what we want. Another thought is that one backlight device may be shared by multiple framebuffers. We don't hope blanking one of the framebuffers may turn the backlight off for all the other framebuffers, since they are likely being active to display something. This patch adds some logics to record each framebuffer's backlight usage to determine the backlight device use count and whether the backlight should be turned on or off. To be more specific, only one unblank operation on a certain blanked framebuffer may increase the backlight device's use count by one, while one blank operation on a certain unblanked framebuffer may decrease the use count by one, because the userspace is likely to unblank a unblanked framebuffer or blank a blanked framebuffer.
Signed-off-by: Liu Ying Ying.Liu@freescale.com --- v1 can be found at https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/30/139
v1->v2: * Make the commit message be more specific about the condition in which backlight device use count can be increased/decreased. * Correct the setting for bd->props.fb_blank.
drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++------- include/linux/backlight.h | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c b/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c index 5d05555..42044be 100644 --- a/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/backlight.c @@ -34,13 +34,15 @@ static const char *const backlight_types[] = { defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE_MODULE)) /* This callback gets called when something important happens inside a * framebuffer driver. We're looking if that important event is blanking, - * and if it is, we're switching backlight power as well ... + * and if it is and necessary, we're switching backlight power as well ... */ static int fb_notifier_callback(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long event, void *data) { struct backlight_device *bd; struct fb_event *evdata = data; + int node = evdata->info->node; + int fb_blank = 0;
/* If we aren't interested in this event, skip it immediately ... */ if (event != FB_EVENT_BLANK && event != FB_EVENT_CONBLANK) @@ -51,12 +53,24 @@ static int fb_notifier_callback(struct notifier_block *self, if (bd->ops) if (!bd->ops->check_fb || bd->ops->check_fb(bd, evdata->info)) { - bd->props.fb_blank = *(int *)evdata->data; - if (bd->props.fb_blank == FB_BLANK_UNBLANK) - bd->props.state &= ~BL_CORE_FBBLANK; - else - bd->props.state |= BL_CORE_FBBLANK; - backlight_update_status(bd); + fb_blank = *(int *)evdata->data; + if (fb_blank == FB_BLANK_UNBLANK && + !bd->fb_bl_on[node]) { + bd->fb_bl_on[node] = true; + if (!bd->use_count++) { + bd->props.state &= ~BL_CORE_FBBLANK; + bd->props.fb_blank = FB_BLANK_UNBLANK; + backlight_update_status(bd); + } + } else if (fb_blank != FB_BLANK_UNBLANK && + bd->fb_bl_on[node]) { + bd->fb_bl_on[node] = false; + if (!(--bd->use_count)) { + bd->props.state |= BL_CORE_FBBLANK; + bd->props.fb_blank = FB_BLANK_POWERDOWN; + backlight_update_status(bd); + } + } } mutex_unlock(&bd->ops_lock); return 0; diff --git a/include/linux/backlight.h b/include/linux/backlight.h index 5f9cd96..7264742 100644 --- a/include/linux/backlight.h +++ b/include/linux/backlight.h @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #define _LINUX_BACKLIGHT_H
#include <linux/device.h> +#include <linux/fb.h> #include <linux/mutex.h> #include <linux/notifier.h>
@@ -104,6 +105,11 @@ struct backlight_device { struct list_head entry;
struct device dev; + + /* Multiple framebuffers may share one backlight device */ + bool fb_bl_on[FB_MAX]; + + int use_count; };
static inline void backlight_update_status(struct backlight_device *bd)
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Liu Ying Ying.Liu@freescale.com wrote:
Anything backlight worries me a little, and there are actually three changes bundled into one patch here:
1. Changing bd->props.state and bd->props.fb_blank only when use_count changes from 0->1 or 1->0.
2. Calling backlight_update_status() only with the above change, and not on all notifier callbacks.
3. Setting bd->props.fb_blank always to either FB_BLANK_UNBLANK or FB_BLANK_POWERDOWN instead of *(int *)evdata->data.
The rationale in the commit message seems plausible, and AFAICT the code does what it says on the box, so for that (and for that alone) you can have my
Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com
*BUT* it would be laborous to figure out whether this change in behaviour might regress some drivers. I'm just punting on that. And that brings us back to the three changes above - in a bisect POV it might be helpful to split the patch up. Up to the maintainers.
HTH, Jani.
On 01/22/2014 05:35 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
Looking at the patch again, I think we should set fb_blank to bd->props.fb_blank here to minimize the logic change. I'll do more test for this and provide v3 if necessary.
Thanks for your review.
The backlight on my board is driving two separate display interfaces. Instead of applying this patch to my kernel tree every time I upgrade it, I chose to send it to folks for review.
As the essential idea of this patch looks reasonable to me, I hope change could be done in other drivers in case this patch regresses them.
Liu Ying
On 01/23/2014 01:44 PM, Jingoo Han wrote:
Since I have already post v3(https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/22/126) to change the setting for bd->props.fb_blank, the idea of the 3rd point is not very appropriate any more.
I am open to split the patch up. However, IMHO, this patch is somewhat self-contained. For example, if we try to create 2 patches for the 1st point and the 2nd point Jani mentioned, one patch would invent the use_count and call backlight_update_status() on all notifier callbacks(just ignore the use_count). Do you think this is a good patch?
It also doesn't look straightforward for me to create 2 patches for the 1st point and the 2nd point.
Please advice.
Regards, Liu Ying
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:28 PM, Liu Ying wrote:
OK, I see.
The calling backlight_update_status() regardless the use_count Will make the critical side effect? I don't think so. Also, these two patches will be merged at the same time. Please, split the patch into two patches. It would be clearer.
One more thing, please keep the indent using "Enter", when sending your reply mail.
Best regards, Jingoo Han
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Jani Nikula -
Jingoo Han -
Liu Ying