Re: [PATCH 6/6] hwmon: pwm-fan: Update the duty cycle inorder to control the pwm-fan

[Anand Moon]

Hi Sjoerd,

I don't much advance knowledge on internal signaling of pwm-samsung module.

So do I need to send this patch again ?

-Anand Moon


On 10 April 2015 at 17:30, Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey Anand,
>
> On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 16:58 +0530, Anand Moon wrote:
>> Hi Guenter/Lukasz,
>>
>> Earlier I send v2 version of the patch spiking this one.
>>
>> Markus Riechl came back to me with below mail.
>> So This patch confirms fixes the bug.
>>
>> I will send v3 version of the patch. Earlier I was in delima about the bug.
>>
>> -Anand Moon
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Hi Anand,
>>
>> I tested your patch.
>>
>> After booting the fan is spinning despite only 44°C.
>>
>> /sys/class/thermal/cooling_device0/curstate is 0.
>> /sys/class/hwmon/hwmon4/pwm1 is 0
>>
>> when I echo 1 > cur_state and then echo 0 > cur_state again,
>> the fan switches to off and behaves as expected.
>>
>> It looks like there is a bug in initializing the pwm output
>> immediately after booting.
>
> The problem here will be that at boot the PWM runs at full duty. With
> the current exynos PWM drive if you disable the PWM it will stop pulsing
> but remain high if it was at 100% duty. My patch on which you depend
> upon fixed a race  where disabling the pwm right after changing the duty
> cycle (e.g. to 0%) also kept the signal high.
>
> From looking at other PWM users at the time it seemed that most if not
> all always first set to duty to 0% and then disable the pwm. Which
> should work fine on exynos now. However iirc Thierry recently clarified
> that the expected result of pwm_disable is not just that the modulation
> stops but also that the output signal goes low, although that's not very
> explicit in the current pwm documentation.. The exynos PWM driver will
> need another fix tweak to make that true.
>
>
>
>> Best Regards,
>
>
>
>> --
>> Markus Reichl
>>
>> On 8 April 2015 at 23:19, Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hi Guenter,
>> >
>> > Sorry my blunder mistake. Sorry for the noise.
>> >
>> > I just tested with spiking this patch and my observation and testing
>> > were wrong we can skip this patch.
>> >
>> > I will send an v2 patch series removing the patch 5 and patch 6.
>> >
>> > With correct dts changes.
>> >
>> > Thanks for pointing my mistake.
>> >
>> > -Anand Moon
>> >
>> > On 8 April 2015 at 22:23, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:32:05PM +0530, Anand Moon wrote:
>> >>> Hi Guenter,
>> >>>
>> >>> Initially the board bootup the cooling level state is 0.
>> >>> So update the duty cycle and this power off the fan.
>> >>> As their is no state change the fan will not spin.
>> >>>
>> >>> Once the temperature sensor is reached to alert temperature it changes state.
>> >>> With the state change the fan cools the CPU and then stop's
>> >>>
>> >>> I have observed this state change with tmon utility in linux/tools/thermal/tmon/
>> >>>
>> >> Sorry, I am missing something. I still don't see what problem you are fixing
>> >> with this patch. What behavior is wrong with the current code, and how does your
>> >> patch fix it ?
>> >>
>> >> Guenter
>> >>
>> >>> -Anand Moon
>> >>>
>> >>> On 8 April 2015 at 21:02, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 10:44:15AM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> >>> >> Hi Anand,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > Below changes depend on following patch.
>> >>> >> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5944061/
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Update the pwm_config with duty then update the pwm_disable
>> >>> >> > to poweroff the cpu fan.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Unfortunately, the patch does not include an explanation why it is needed.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The original code presumably did not update the duty cycle because
>> >>> > pwm was about to be disabled anyway. That kind of made sense to me.
>> >>> > Updating the duty cycle to 0 just to disable the pwm channel right
>> >>> > afterwards does not immediately make sense.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Given that, I would expect to see a rationale here. Why is this patch needed ?
>> >>> > Does it fix a bug ? If yes, pelase describe the bug. If not, what is the
>> >>> > purpose of this patch ?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Maybe that is all explained in patch 0/6, which I was not copied on. Even
>> >>> > if so, the reationale will be needed in the changelog to explain to future
>> >>> > developers why this change was made.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Thanks,
>> >>> > Guenter
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> > Tested on OdroidXU3 board.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> >> > ---
>> >>> >> >  drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c | 10 ++++------
>> >>> >> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
>> >>> >> > index 7c83dc4..f25c841 100644
>> >>> >> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
>> >>> >> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
>> >>> >> > @@ -44,26 +44,24 @@ static int  __set_pwm(struct pwm_fan_ctx *ctx,
>> >>> >> > unsigned long pwm) int ret = 0;
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >     mutex_lock(&ctx->lock);
>> >>> >> > +
>> >>> >
>> >>> > [ please refrain from unnecessary whitespace changes ]
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >     if (ctx->pwm_value == pwm)
>> >>> >> >             goto exit_set_pwm_err;
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > -   if (pwm == 0) {
>> >>> >> > -           pwm_disable(ctx->pwm);
>> >>> >> > -           goto exit_set_pwm;
>> >>> >> > -   }
>> >>> >> > -
>> >>> >> >     duty = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm * (ctx->pwm->period - 1), MAX_PWM);
>> >>> >> >     ret = pwm_config(ctx->pwm, duty, ctx->pwm->period);
>> >>> >> >     if (ret)
>> >>> >> >             goto exit_set_pwm_err;
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > +   if (pwm == 0)
>> >>> >> > +           pwm_disable(ctx->pwm);
>> >>> >> > +
>> >>> >> >     if (ctx->pwm_value == 0) {
>> >>> >> >             ret = pwm_enable(ctx->pwm);
>> >>> >> >             if (ret)
>> >>> >> >                     goto exit_set_pwm_err;
>> >>> >> >     }
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > -exit_set_pwm:
>> >>> >> >     ctx->pwm_value = pwm;
>> >>> >> >  exit_set_pwm_err:
>> >>> >> >     mutex_unlock(&ctx->lock);
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> BTW: I've added Guenter to CC.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> Best regards,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Lukasz Majewski
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/