Re: [PATCH v6 1/1] pwm: imx27: workaround of the pwm output bug when decrease the duty cycle

[Frank Li]

On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 09:48:12PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 10/2/24 9:45 PM, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:28:02PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 9/17/24 9:25 PM, Frank Li wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > @@ -223,6 +224,8 @@ static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > >    	struct pwm_imx27_chip *imx = to_pwm_imx27_chip(chip);
> > > >    	unsigned long long c;
> > > >    	unsigned long long clkrate;
> > > > +	unsigned long flags;
> > > > +	int val;
> > > >    	int ret;
> > > >    	u32 cr;
> > > > @@ -263,7 +266,69 @@ static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > +	c = clkrate * 1500;
> > > > +	do_div(c, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> > > > +
> > > > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> > > > +	val = FIELD_GET(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV, readl_relaxed(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSR));
> > >
> > > I think the multi-write I mentioned in v5 for > 500 kHz case could further
> > > improve the patch, let's see what others think:
> > >
> > > if (state->period < 2000) { /* 2000ns = 500 kHz */
> > >     /* Best effort attempt to fix up >500 kHz case */
> > >     udelay(6); /* 2us per FIFO entry, 3 FIFO entries written => 6 us */
> > >     writel_relaxed(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > >     writel_relaxed(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > >     /* Last write is outside, after this conditional */
> > > } else if (duty_cycles ...
>
> Can you have a look at this part ?

I can put here and it should be no harmful.

Frank

>
> > > > +	if (duty_cycles < imx->duty_cycle && val < MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV_2WORDS) {
> > > > +		val = readl_relaxed(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCNR);
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * If counter is close to period, controller may roll over when
> > > > +		 * next IO write.
> > > > +		 */
> > >
> > > c is only used in this if (duty_cycles ...) { } conditional, the do_div()
> > > above can be moved here:
> >
> > It is in local_irq_save(flags) scope, it'd better as less as possible. So
> > I prefer do_div() is outside local_irq_save()
> Good point, either way is fine by me.