Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] leds: core: Introduce LED pattern trigger
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>, rteysseyre@gmail.com,
        bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, broonie@kernel.org,
        linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1dc5d394324b2bf1ffe229b8e42691fab6d749e0.1533556992.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
 <c18fd41f-831c-ab74-57e5-d4151f4b47cc@gmail.com> <20180824101145.GA1510@amd>
 <9bb7ac19-36a6-d11a-6d46-fc65c2026201@gmail.com> <20180824201227.GB17146@amd>
From:   Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f5046e2d-9f15-4b7e-083e-e97f7ca0693c@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 22:44:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180824201227.GB17146@amd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/24/2018 10:12 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2018-08-24 21:49:50, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>>
>> On 08/24/2018 12:11 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>>> I think that it would be more flexible if software pattern fallback
>>>> was applied in case of pattern_set failure. Otherwise, it would
>>>> lead to the situation where LED class devices that support hardware
>>>> blinking couldn't be applied the same set of patterns as LED class
>>>> devices that don't implement pattern_set. The latter will always have to
>>>> resort to using software pattern engine which will accept far greater
>>>> amount of pattern combinations.
>>>>
>>>> In this case we need to discuss on what basis the decision will be
>>>> made on whether hardware or software engine will be used.
>>>>
>>>> Possible options coming to mind:
>>>> - an interface will be provided to determine max difference between
>>>>   the settings supported by the hardware and the settings requested by
>>>>   the user, that will result in aligning user's setting to the hardware
>>>>   capabilities
>>>> - the above alignment rate will be predefined instead
>>>> - hardware engine will be used only if user requests supported settings
>>>>   on the whole span of the requested pattern
>>>> - in each of the above cases it would be worth to think of the
>>>>   interface to show the scope of the settings supported by hardware
>>>
>>> I'd recommend keeping it simple. We use hardware engine if driver
>>> author thinks pattern is "close enough".
>>
>> The thing is that in the ledtrig-pattern v5 implementation there
>> is no option of using software fallback if pattern_set op
>> is initialized:
>>
>> +	if (led_cdev->pattern_set) {
>> +		return led_cdev->pattern_set(led_cdev, data->patterns,
>> +					     data->npatterns, data->repeat);
>> +	}
> 
> Yeah, that sounds wrong. (Sorry I did not pay enough attention).
> 
> It pattern_set() returns special error code, it should just continue
> and use software pattern fallback.

And now we can get back to the issue I was concerned about in the
email you replied to, i.e. what series of [brightness delta_t] tuples
should be written to the pattern file to enable hardware breathing
engine.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski