Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement the pwm_chip

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Bjorn,

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:38:26AM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 17 Jun 01:24 CDT 2021, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:22:17PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > > +static int ti_sn_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > > +			   const struct pwm_state *state)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = pwm_chip_to_ti_sn_bridge(chip);
> > > > > +	unsigned int pwm_en_inv;
> > > > > +	unsigned int backlight;
> > > > > +	unsigned int pre_div;
> > > > > +	unsigned int scale;
> > > > > +	int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (!pdata->pwm_enabled) {
> > > > > +		ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pdata->dev);
> > > > > +		if (ret < 0)
> > > > > +			return ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		ret = regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_GPIO_CTRL_REG,
> > > > > +				SN_GPIO_MUX_MASK << (2 * SN_PWM_GPIO_IDX),
> > > > > +				SN_GPIO_MUX_SPECIAL << (2 * SN_PWM_GPIO_IDX));
> > > > > +		if (ret) {
> > > > > +			dev_err(pdata->dev, "failed to mux in PWM function\n");
> > > > > +			goto out;
> > > > > +		}
> > > > 
> > > > Do you need to do this even if state->enabled is false?
> > > 
> > > I presume I should be able to explicitly mux in the GPIO function and
> > > configure that to output low. But I am not able to find anything in the
> > > data sheet that would indicate this to be preferred.
> > 
> > My question targetted a different case. If the PWM is off
> > (!pdata->pwm_enabled) and should remain off (state->enabled is false)
> > you can shortcut here, can you not?
> 
> Right, if we're going off->off then we don't need to touch the hardware.
> 
> But am I expected to -EINVAL improper period and duty cycle even though
> enabled is false?
> 
> And also, what is the supposed behavior of enabled = false? Is it
> supposedly equivalent of asking for a duty_cycle of 0?

In my book enabled = false is just syntactic sugar to say:
"duty_cycle=0, period=something small". So to answer your questions: if
enabled = false, the consumer doesn't really care about period and
duty_cycle. Some care that the output becomes inactive, some others
don't, so from my POV just emit the inactive level on the output and
ignore period and duty_cycle.

> > > > Does this already modify the output pin?
> > > 
> > > Yes, coming out of reset this pin is configured as input, so switching
> > > the mux here will effectively start driving the pin.
> > 
> > So please document this in the format the recently added drivers do,
> > too. See e.g. drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c. (The idea is to start that with
> > " * Limitations:" to make it easy to grep it.)
> > 
> 
> Okay, will do. Although I believe that for this driver it makes sense to
> place such comment close to this function, rather than at the top of the
> driver.

Yes, agreed.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature