[RFC/PATCH 0/2] Backlight support

Gregory CLEMENT gregory.clement at free-electrons.com
Fri Oct 7 16:47:34 EDT 2011

On 10/07/2011 03:15 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Hi Gregory,
Hi Sasha,

thanks to have taken some time to have a look on my series.

> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 10:05:07AM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> This patch set is a RFC about a backlight framework. The purpose of
>> this framework is mainly to allow to add easily a support for a
>> backlight with the possibility of setting brightness directly from the
>> barebox shell using the brightness parameter.
>> An implementation is provided for i.MX23 by using the PWM. It was
>> tested on a custom i.MX23 base board.
> Two things that bother me in this series.
> First thing is that I wonder if it would be better to not
> register a seperate device for backlight. How about a call
> like this:
> fb_register_backlight(const char *fb,
> 	void (*set_brightness)(int brightness, void *priv));
> The core would only need a function to find the struct device_d
> by the corresponding "fbx" string. This way we could add the
> brightness variable to the framebuffer and not a seperate device,
> so fb0.brightness=50.

I wasn't entirely convinced by having a driver with a single
function. I came to this by several iterations and it didn't lead me
in the best direction. That's why I called this series a RFC. I will
take in account your idea and propose a new version.

> The second thing is that the pwm you use for the mxs backlight
> is a generic pwm which not necessarily drives a backlight. We
> should have a generic pwm api for this. Otherwise we end up
> with different drivers for the same pwm.

As I didn't see any pwm framework or API I wasn't sure it was planned
or needed to have it in barebox. But I volunteer to work on it. So how
do you see it: as an API or as complete driver ?


Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.

More information about the barebox mailing list