On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:30:28PM +0200, Paul Cercueil wrote:
The previous algorithm hardcoded details about how the TCU clocks work.
The new algorithm will use clk_round_rate to find the perfect clock rate
for the PWM channel.
Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Artur Rojek <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c
index 6ec8794d3b99..f20dc2e19240 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-jz4740.c
@@ -110,24 +110,56 @@ static int jz4740_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
struct jz4740_pwm_chip *jz4740 = to_jz4740(pwm->chip);
struct clk *clk = pwm_get_chip_data(pwm),
*parent_clk = clk_get_parent(clk);
- unsigned long rate, period, duty;
+ unsigned long rate, parent_rate, period, duty;
unsigned long long tmp;
- unsigned int prescaler = 0;
+ int ret;
- rate = clk_get_rate(parent_clk);
- tmp = (unsigned long long)rate * state->period;
- do_div(tmp, 1000000000);
- period = tmp;
+ parent_rate = clk_get_rate(parent_clk);
+
+ jz4740_pwm_disable(chip, pwm);
- while (period > 0xffff && prescaler < 6) {
- period >>= 2;
- rate >>= 2;
- ++prescaler;
+ /* Reset the clock to the maximum rate, and we'll reduce it if needed */
+ ret = clk_set_max_rate(clk, parent_rate);
What is the purpose of this call? IIUC this limits the allowed range of
rates for clk. I assume the idea is to prevent other consumers to change
the rate in a way that makes it unsuitable for this pwm. But this only
makes sense if you had a notifier for clk changes, doesn't it? I'm
confused.
I think this doesn't match the commit log, you didn't even introduced a
call to clk_round_rate().
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(chip->dev, "Unable to set max rate: %d\n", ret);
+ return ret;
}
- if (prescaler == 6)
- return -EINVAL;
+ ret = clk_set_rate(clk, parent_rate);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(chip->dev, "Unable to reset to parent rate (%lu Hz)",
+ parent_rate);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Limit the clock to a maximum rate that still gives us a period value
+ * which fits in 16 bits.
+ */
+ tmp = 0xffffull * NSEC_PER_SEC;
+ do_div(tmp, state->period);
+ ret = clk_set_max_rate(clk, tmp);
And now you change the maximal rate again?
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(chip->dev, "Unable to set max rate: %d\n", ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Read back the clock rate, as it may have been modified by
+ * clk_set_max_rate()
+ */
+ rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
+
+ if (rate != parent_rate)
+ dev_dbg(chip->dev, "PWM clock updated to %lu Hz\n", rate);
+
+ /* Calculate period value */
+ tmp = (unsigned long long)rate * state->period;
+ do_div(tmp, NSEC_PER_SEC);
+ period = (unsigned long)tmp;
+
+ /* Calculate duty value */
tmp = (unsigned long long)period * state->duty_cycle;
do_div(tmp, state->period);
duty = period - tmp;
@@ -135,14 +167,10 @@ static int jz4740_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
if (duty >= period)
duty = period - 1;
- jz4740_pwm_disable(chip, pwm);
-
/* Set abrupt shutdown */
regmap_update_bits(jz4740->map, TCU_REG_TCSRc(pwm->hwpwm),
TCU_TCSR_PWM_SD, TCU_TCSR_PWM_SD);
- clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
-
It's not obvious to me why removing these two lines belong in the
current patch.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |