Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752348Ab1CJMv5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:51:57 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48781 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751022Ab1CJMv4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:51:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:51:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: "Indan Zupancic" Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Alex Riesen" , "Jesse Barnes" , "DRI mailing list" , "Chris Wilson" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Tino Keitel" , stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix backlight brightness on intel LVDS panel after reopening lid In-Reply-To: <5c286d66bf790d7fbdd69c9861edc91d.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> References: <20110216192658.GA7225@blimp.localdomain> <20110217221329.GA3332@x61.home> <3f792aaf90cf0b3d49be21baa2682d5d.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> <20110222130440.21a27714@jbarnes-desktop> <20110222223120.GA3567@x61.home> <3e6f092bd0aa54fd6b9eb524f6c87ecf.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> <1a06e2711df021a802d609ad1a75db17.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> <5c286d66bf790d7fbdd69c9861edc91d.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.6 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.7 Emacs/23.2 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5519 Lines: 156 At Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:45:18 +0100 (CET), Indan Zupancic wrote: > > On Thu, March 10, 2011 08:49, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Thu, 10 Mar 2011 06:50:09 +0100 (CET), > > Indan Zupancic wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> On Fri, March 4, 2011 19:47, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > Alex, can you confirm that the revert of 951f3512dba5 plus the > >> > one-liner patch from Takashi that Indan quoted also works for you? > >> > > >> > Linus > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote: > >> >> > >> >> So please revert my patch and apply Takashi Iwai's, which fixes the > >> >> most immediate bug without changing anything else. This should go > >> >> in stable too. > >> > > >> > >> I found another backlight bug: > >> > >> When suspending intel_panel_disable_backlight() is never called, > >> but intel_panel_enable_backlight() is called at resume. With the > >> effect that if the brightness was ever changed after screen > >> blanking, the wrong brightness gets restored. > >> > >> This explains the weird behaviour I've seen. I didn't see it with > >> combination mode, because then the brightness is always the same > >> (zero or the maximum, the BIOS only uses LBPC on my system.) I'll > >> send a patch in a moment. > >> > >> Alternative for reverting the combination mode removal (I can also > >> redo the patch against the revert and Takashi's patch, if that's > >> preferred): > >> > >> -- > >> > >> drm/i915: Do handle backlight combination mode specially > >> > >> Add back the combination mode check, but with slightly cleaner code > >> and the weirdness removed: No val >>= 1, but also no val &= ~1. The > >> old code probably confused bit 0 with BLM_LEGACY_MODE, which is bit 16. > >> The other change is clearer calculations: Just check for zero level > >> explicitly instead of avoiding the divide-by-zero. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Indan Zupancic > >> > >> --- > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c > >> index d860abe..b05631a 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c > >> @@ -30,6 +30,10 @@ > >> > >> #include "intel_drv.h" > >> > >> +#define PCI_LBPC 0xf4 /* legacy/combination backlight modes */ > >> +#define BLM_COMBINATION_MODE (1 << 30) > >> +#define BLM_LEGACY_MODE (1 << 16) > >> + > >> void > >> intel_fixed_panel_mode(struct drm_display_mode *fixed_mode, > >> struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode) > >> @@ -110,6 +114,22 @@ done: > >> dev_priv->pch_pf_size = (width << 16) | height; > >> } > >> > >> +/* > >> + * What about gen 3? If there are no gen 3 systems with ASLE, > >> + * then it doesn't matter, as we don't need to change the > >> + * brightness. But then the gen 2 check can be removed too. > >> + */ > >> +static int is_backlight_combination_mode(struct drm_device *dev) > >> +{ > >> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > >> + > >> + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 4) > >> + return I915_READ(BLC_PWM_CTL2) & BLM_COMBINATION_MODE; > >> + if (IS_GEN2(dev)) > >> + return I915_READ(BLC_PWM_CTL) & BLM_LEGACY_MODE; > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> + > >> static u32 i915_read_blc_pwm_ctl(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > >> { > >> u32 val; > >> @@ -163,9 +183,12 @@ u32 intel_panel_get_max_backlight(struct drm_device *dev) > >> max >>= 17; > >> } else { > >> max >>= 16; > >> + /* Ignore BLM_LEGACY_MODE bit */ > >> if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 4) > >> max &= ~1; > >> } > >> + if (is_backlight_combination_mode(dev)) > >> + max *= 0xff; > >> } > >> > >> DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("max backlight PWM = %d\n", max); > >> @@ -183,6 +206,12 @@ u32 intel_panel_get_backlight(struct drm_device *dev) > >> val = I915_READ(BLC_PWM_CTL) & BACKLIGHT_DUTY_CYCLE_MASK; > >> if (IS_PINEVIEW(dev)) > >> val >>= 1; > >> + if (is_backlight_combination_mode(dev)){ > >> + u8 lbpc; > >> + > >> + pci_read_config_byte(dev->pdev, PCI_LBPC, &lbpc); > >> + val *= lbpc; > >> + } > >> } > >> > >> DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("get backlight PWM = %d\n", val); > >> @@ -205,6 +234,15 @@ void intel_panel_set_backlight(struct drm_device *dev, u32 level) > >> > >> if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) > >> return intel_pch_panel_set_backlight(dev, level); > >> + > >> + if (level && is_backlight_combination_mode(dev)){ > >> + u32 max = intel_panel_get_max_backlight(dev); > >> + u8 lpbc; > >> + > >> + lpbc = level * 0xff / max; > >> + level /= lpbc; > > > > Hmm, I don't think this calculation is correct. This would result > > in level of opregion over its limit. For example, assume the level > > max = 100, so total max = 25500. Passing level=150 here will be: > > > > lbpc = 150 * 0xff / 25500 = 1.5 = 1 > > level = 150 / 1 = 150, which is over limit. > > > > More worse, lbpc can be zero when level is below 100 in the case > > above... > > Yes, you're right. It seems that any simplification I try to do > creates a new bug. > > Do you have any bright idea why the old code did val &= ~1; too? > It seems obvious it's related to val >>= 1, but... I guess it's for the case GEN < 4. But, no certain idea. In my patch, I left it since this is relatively harmless, even if it's not correct. Takashi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/