Re: [PATCH 2/2] pwm: sprd: Add Spreadtrum PWM support
From: Baolin Wang
Date: Mon Aug 12 2019 - 03:29:25 EST
Hi Uwe,
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 22:41, Uwe Kleine-KÃnig
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Baolin,
>
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 06:06:21PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Uwe Kleine-KÃnig
> > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 04:59:39PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chip *spc =
> > > > + container_of(chip, struct sprd_pwm_chip, chip);
> > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chn *chn = &spc->chn[pwm->hwpwm];
> > > > + u64 div, tmp;
> > > > + u32 prescale, duty;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * NOTE: the clocks to PWM channel has to be enabled first before
> > > > + * writing to the registers.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!chn->clk_enabled) {
> > > > + ret = clk_bulk_prepare_enable(SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS, chn->clks);
> > >
> > > Do you really need to enable all 8 clocks to configure a single channel?
> >
> > We have 4 channels, and each channel use 2 clocks, so here only enable
> > 2 clocks, see SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS.
>
> Ah, I thought SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS was 8.
>
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + dev_err(spc->dev, "failed to enable pwm%u clock\n",
> > > > + pwm->hwpwm);
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + chn->clk_enabled = true;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + duty = duty_ns * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX / period_ns;
> > >
> > > @Baolin: until we're there that there are framework requirements how to
> > > round, please document at least how you do it here. Also describing the
> > > underlying concepts would be good for the driver reader.
> > >
> > > Something like:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * The hardware provides a counter that is feed by the source clock.
> > > * The period length is (PRESCALE + 1) * MOD counter steps.
> > > * The duty cycle length is (PRESCALE + 1) * DUTY counter steps.
> > > *
> > > * To keep the maths simple we're always using MOD = MOD_MAX.
> > > * The value for PRESCALE is selected such that the resulting period
> > > * gets the maximal length not bigger than the requested one with the
> > > * given settings (MOD = MOD_MAX and input clock).
> > > */
> >
> > Yes, totally agree with you. I will add some documentation for our
> > controller's setting.
> >
> > >
> > > @Thierry: having a framework guideline here would be good. Or still
> > > better a guideline and a debug setting that notices drivers stepping out
> > > of line.
> > >
> > > I assume using MOD = 0 is forbidden?
> > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * According to the datasheet, the period_ns calculation formula
> > > > + * should be:
> > > > + * period_ns = 10^9 * (prescale + 1) * mod / clk_rate
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Then we can get the prescale formula:
> > > > + * prescale = (period_ns * clk_rate) / (10^9 * mod) -1
> > > > + */
> > > > + tmp = chn->clk_rate * period_ns;
> > > > + div = 1000000000ULL * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX;
> > >
> > > Please use NSEC_PER_SEC instead of 1000000000ULL.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > >
> > > > + prescale = div64_u64(tmp, div) - 1;
> > >
> > > If tmp is smaller than div you end up with prescale = 0xffffffff which
> > > should be catched. What if prescale > 0xffff?
> >
> > Usually we can not meet this case, but you are right, the prescale has
> > a limit according to the register definition. So will add a validation
> > here.
> >
> > >
> > > > + sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_MOD, SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX);
> > > > + sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_DUTY, duty);
> > >
> > > You're losing precision here as you always use SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX, right?
> > > (Just for my understanding, if this simpler approach is good enough
> > > here that's fine.)
> >
> > Yes, SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX is good enough.
>
> ok.
>
> > >
> > > > + sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_PAT_LOW, SPRD_PWM_REG_MSK);
> > > > + sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_PAT_HIGH, SPRD_PWM_REG_MSK);
> > >
> > > Please describe these two registers in a short comment.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > >
> > > > + sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE, prescale);
> > >
> > > Is the configuration here atomic in the sense that the write of DUTY
> > > above only gets effective when PRESCALE is written? If not, please add
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > a describing paragraph at the top of the driver similar to what is
> > > written in pwm-sifive.c. When the PWM is already running before, how
> > > does a configuration change effects the output? Is the currently running
> > > period completed?
> >
> > Anyway, I'll add some comments to explain how it works.
>
> I'd apreciate if you'd stick to the format in pwm-sifive.c to make it
> easier to grep for that.
OK.
>
> > > > +static void sprd_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > + struct pwm_state *state)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chip *spc =
> > > > + container_of(chip, struct sprd_pwm_chip, chip);
> > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chn *chn = &spc->chn[pwm->hwpwm];
> > > > + u32 enabled, duty, prescale;
> > > > + u64 tmp;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = clk_bulk_prepare_enable(SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS, chn->clks);
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + dev_err(spc->dev, "failed to enable pwm%u clocks\n",
> > > > + pwm->hwpwm);
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + chn->clk_enabled = true;
> > > > +
> > > > + duty = sprd_pwm_read(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_DUTY) & SPRD_PWM_REG_MSK;
> > > > + prescale = sprd_pwm_read(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE) & SPRD_PWM_REG_MSK;
> > > > + enabled = sprd_pwm_read(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_ENABLE) & SPRD_PWM_ENABLE_BIT;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * According to the datasheet, the period_ns and duty_ns calculation
> > > > + * formula should be:
> > > > + * period_ns = 10^9 * (prescale + 1) * mod / clk_rate
> > > > + * duty_ns = 10^9 * (prescale + 1) * duty / clk_rate
> > > > + */
> > > > + tmp = (prescale + 1) * 1000000000ULL * SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX;
> > > > + state->period = div64_u64(tmp, chn->clk_rate);
> > >
> > > This is not idempotent. If you apply the configuration that is returned
> > > here this shouldn't result in a reconfiguration.
> >
> > Since we may configure the PWM in bootloader, so in kernel part we
> > should get current PWM state to avoid reconfiguration if state
> > configuration are same.
>
> This is also important as some consumers might do something like:
>
> state = pwm_get_state(mypwm)
> if (something):
> state->duty = 0
> else:
> state->duty = state->period / 2
> pwm_set_state(mypwm, state)
>
> and then period shouldn't get smaller in each step.
> (This won't happen as of now because the PWM framework caches the last
> state that was set and returns this for pwm_get_state. Still getting
> this right would be good.)
I understood your concern, but the period can be configured in
bootloader, we have no software things to save the accurate period.
Moreover I think I can change to use DIV_ROUND_CLOSET_ULL to keep the
accuracy.
>
> > > > + tmp = (prescale + 1) * 1000000000ULL * duty;
> > > > + state->duty_cycle = div64_u64(tmp, chn->clk_rate);
> > > > +
> > > > + state->enabled = !!enabled;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Disable PWM clocks if the PWM channel is not in enable state. */
> > > > + if (!enabled) {
> > > > + clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS, chn->clks);
> > > > + chn->clk_enabled = false;
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static const struct pwm_ops sprd_pwm_ops = {
> > > > + .config = sprd_pwm_config,
> > > > + .enable = sprd_pwm_enable,
> > > > + .disable = sprd_pwm_disable,
> > > > + .get_state = sprd_pwm_get_state,
> > > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static int sprd_pwm_clk_init(struct sprd_pwm_chip *spc)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct clk *clk_parent, *clk_pwm;
> > > > + int ret, i, clk_index = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + clk_parent = devm_clk_get(spc->dev, "source");
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(clk_parent)) {
> > > > + dev_err(spc->dev, "failed to get source clock\n");
> > > > + return PTR_ERR(clk_parent);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < SPRD_PWM_NUM; i++) {
> > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chn *chn = &spc->chn[i];
> > > > + int j;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (j = 0; j < SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS; ++j)
> > > > + chn->clks[j].id = sprd_pwm_clks[clk_index++];
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = devm_clk_bulk_get(spc->dev, SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS, chn->clks);
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + if (ret == -ENOENT)
> > > > + break;
> > >
> > > devm_clk_bulk_get_optional ? I'm sure you don't want to get all 8 clocks
> > > 8 times.
> >
> > This is not optional, each channel has 2 required clocks, and we have
> > 4 channels. (SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS == 2)
>
> I see. Currently it is not possible to use channel 2 if there are no
> clocks for channel 0, right? There is no hardware related problem here,
Yes.
> just a shortcoming of the driver?
Yes.
>
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_err(spc->dev, "failed to get channel clocks\n");
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + clk_pwm = chn->clks[1].clk;
> > >
> > > This 1 looks suspicious. Are you using all clocks provided in the dtb at
> > > all? You're not using i in the loop at all, this doesn't look right.
> >
> > Like I said above, each channel has 2 clocks: enable clock and pwm
> > clock, the 2nd clock of each channel's bulk clocks is the pwm clock,
> > which is used to set the source clock. I know this's not easy to read,
> > so do you have any good suggestion?
>
> Not sure this is easily possible to rework to make this clearer.
>
> Do these clks have different uses? e.g. one to enable register access
> and the other to enable the pwm output? If so just using
Yes.
> devm_clk_bulk_get isn't the right thing because you should be able know
> if clks[0] or clks[1] is the one you need to enable the output (or
> register access).
We've fixed the clock order in bulk clocks by the array
'sprd_pwm_clks', maybe I should define one readable macro instead of
magic number.
>
> > > > + if (!clk_set_parent(clk_pwm, clk_parent))
> > > > + chn->clk_rate = clk_get_rate(clk_pwm);
> > > > + else
> > > > + chn->clk_rate = SPRD_PWM_DEFAULT_CLK;
> > >
> > > I don't know all the clock framework details, but I think there are
> > > better ways to ensure that a given clock is used as parent for another
> > > given clock. Please read the chapter about "Assigned clock parents and
> > > rates" in the clock bindings and check if this could be used for the
> > > purpose here and so simplify the driver.
> >
> > Actually there are many other drivers set the parent clock like this,
> > and we want a default clock if failed to set the parent clock.
>
> These might be older than the clk framework capabilities, or the
> reviewers didn't pay attention to this detail; both shouldn't be a
> reason to not make it better here.
The clock framework supplies 'assigned-clocks' and
'assigned-clock-parents' properties to set parent, but for our case we
still want to set a default clock rate if failed to set parent when
met some abnormal things.
>
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int sprd_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chip *spc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < spc->num_pwms; i++)
> > > > + pwm_disable(&spc->chip.pwms[i]);
> > >
> > > This is wrong. You must not call pwm_disable here. It's the consumer's
> > > responsibility to disable the hardware.
> >
> > Emm, I saw some drivers did like this, like pwm-spear.c.
> > Could you elaborate on what's the problem if the driver issues pwm_disable?
>
> This is a function to be called from code that called pwm_get before
> (i.e. pwm consumers). This just doesn't explode because up to now the
> PWM framework is only a thin wrapper around the lowlevel driver
> callbacks.
>
> The reasoning is similar to what I wrote in commit
> f82d15e223403b05fffb33ba792b87a8620f6fee. I'd like to have a PWM_DEBUG
> setting that catches such problems but the discussion with Thierry to
> even document the expectations is stuck, see
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1021566/.
>
Thanks for your explanation, and I'll remove pwm_disable from driver.
Thanks for your comments.
--
Baolin Wang
Best Regards