Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1421700 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v3 00/14] regulator: pwm: various improvements

Started byBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
First post2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Last post2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Articles 8 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  [PATCH v3 00/14] regulator: pwm: various improvements Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH v3 04/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for hardware readout Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH v3 05/14] pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH v3 09/14] regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH v3 02/14] pwm: Add two helpers to ease relative duty cycle manipulation Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH v3 08/14] pwm: sti: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH v3 13/14] regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH v3 03/14] pwm: rockchip: Fix period and duty_cycle approximation Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-06-14 11:20 +0200

#1421700 — [PATCH v3 00/14] regulator: pwm: various improvements

FromBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 00/14] regulator: pwm: various improvements
Message-ID<rJSFP-2Rh-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hello,

This patch series series aims at adding two important features to the
pwm-regulator driver.

The first one is the support for 'smooth handover' between the
bootloader and the kernel. This is mainly solving problems we have when
the PWM is controlling a critical regulator (like the one powering the
DDR chip). Currently, when the PWM regulator acquire the PWM device it
assumes it was off and it's safe to change the configuration before
enabling it, which can generate glitches on the PWM signal which in turn
generated glitches on the output voltage.
To solve that we've introduced support for hardware readout to the
PWM framework, so that the PWM regulator driver can adjust the PWM
a probe time and avoid glitches.
Atomic update is also helping in this regard.

Patch 1 is adding convenient helpers (at the PWM level) that will be
used by the PWM regulator driver.
Patches 2 to 7 are preparing everything on the PWM driver side to make
hardware readout available to all platforms using the PWM regulator
driver (rockchip and sti).
Patches 8 to 11 are making use of the atomic update and hardware readout
features to implement this smooth handover.

The second feature we add to the driver is the capability of using
a sub duty_cycle range in continuous mode. By default the regulator
is assuming that min_uV is achieved with a 0% dutycyle and max_uV
with a 100% dutycycle, but this is not necessarily true.
Moreover, in some cases (when the PWM device does not support
polarity inversion), we might have min_uV at 100% and max_uV at 0%.
Hence the addition of new properties to the existing DT bindings.
The feature is added in patch 12 and 13.

Best Regards,

Boris

Changes since v2:
- add Heiko's Tested-by
- split patch 1 in 2 patches
- rework the documentation
- rename pwm_prepare_new_state() into pwm_init_state()
- make pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle() return an error code when scale
  or duty_cycle are inconsistent

Changes since v1:
- dropped already applied patches
- added R-b/A-b/T-b tags
- s/readl/readl_relaxed/ in patch 3 (as suggested by Brian)
- fixed pwm-regulator DT binding doc
- added some comments in the code
- replaced pwm_get_state() + if (state.enabled) by if (pwm_is_enabled())

Boris Brezillon (14):
  pwm: Add an helper to prepare a new PWM state
  pwm: Add two helpers to ease relative duty cycle manipulation
  pwm: rockchip: Fix period and duty_cycle approximation
  pwm: rockchip: Add support for hardware readout
  pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs
  pwm: rockchip: Add support for atomic update
  pwm: sti: Add support for hardware readout
  pwm: sti: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs
  regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time
  regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API
  regulator: pwm: Properly initialize the ->state field
  regulator: pwm: Retrieve correct voltage
  regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases
  regulator: pwm: Document pwm-dutycycle-unit and pwm-dutycycle-range

 .../bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt           |  19 +++
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c                         | 178 +++++++++++++++------
 drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c                              |  52 +++++-
 drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c                  | 160 +++++++++++++-----
 include/linux/pwm.h                                |  89 +++++++++++
 5 files changed, 407 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)

-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1421701 — [PATCH v3 04/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for hardware readout

FromBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 04/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for hardware readout
Message-ID<rJSFQ-2Rh-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1421700
Implement the ->get_state() function to expose initial state.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index 68d72ce..c72b419 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_data {
 
 	void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 			   struct pwm_device *pwm, bool enable);
+	void (*get_state)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+			  struct pwm_state *state);
 };
 
 static inline struct rockchip_pwm_chip *to_rockchip_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *c)
@@ -75,6 +77,19 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
 }
 
+static void rockchip_pwm_get_state_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+				      struct pwm_device *pwm,
+				      struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
+	u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
+	u32 val;
+
+	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
+	if ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf)
+		state->enabled = true;
+}
+
 static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 				       struct pwm_device *pwm, bool enable)
 {
@@ -98,6 +113,53 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
 }
 
+static void rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+				      struct pwm_device *pwm,
+				      struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
+	u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
+			  PWM_CONTINUOUS;
+	u32 val;
+
+	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
+	if ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf)
+		return;
+
+	state->enabled = true;
+
+	if (!(val & PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE))
+		state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
+}
+
+static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+				   struct pwm_device *pwm,
+				   struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
+	unsigned long clk_rate;
+	u64 tmp;
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
+	if (ret)
+		return;
+
+	clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pc->clk);
+
+	tmp = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
+	tmp *= pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC;
+	state->period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
+
+	tmp = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
+	tmp *= pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC;
+	state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
+
+	pc->data->get_state(chip, pwm, state);
+
+	clk_disable(pc->clk);
+}
+
 static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			       int duty_ns, int period_ns)
 {
@@ -170,6 +232,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 }
 
 static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = {
+	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state,
 	.config = rockchip_pwm_config,
 	.enable = rockchip_pwm_enable,
 	.disable = rockchip_pwm_disable,
@@ -177,6 +240,7 @@ static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = {
 };
 
 static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 = {
+	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state,
 	.config = rockchip_pwm_config,
 	.set_polarity = rockchip_pwm_set_polarity,
 	.enable = rockchip_pwm_enable,
@@ -194,6 +258,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
 	.prescaler = 2,
 	.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v1,
 	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
+	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v1,
 };
 
 static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
@@ -206,6 +271,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
 	.prescaler = 1,
 	.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2,
 	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
+	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2,
 };
 
 static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
@@ -218,6 +284,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
 	.prescaler = 1,
 	.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2,
 	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
+	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2,
 };
 
 static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1421702 — [PATCH v3 05/14] pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs

FromBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 05/14] pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs
Message-ID<rJSFQ-2Rh-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1421700
The current logic will disable the PWM clk even if the PWM was left
enabled by the bootloader (because it's controlling a critical device
like a regulator for example).
Keep the PWM clk enabled if the PWM is enabled to avoid any glitches.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index c72b419..dd8ca86 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (IS_ERR(pc->clk))
 		return PTR_ERR(pc->clk);
 
-	ret = clk_prepare(pc->clk);
+	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
@@ -342,6 +342,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "pwmchip_add() failed: %d\n", ret);
 	}
 
+	/* Keep the PWM clk enabled if the PWM appears to be up and running. */
+	if (!pwm_is_enabled(pc->chip.pwms))
+		clk_disable(pc->clk);
+
 	return ret;
 }
 
@@ -349,6 +353,20 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
+	/*
+	 * Disable the PWM clk before unpreparing it if the PWM device is still
+	 * running. This should only happen when the last PWM user left it
+	 * enabled, or when nobody requested a PWM that was previously enabled
+	 * by the bootloader.
+	 *
+	 * FIXME: Maybe the core should disable all PWM devices in
+	 * pwmchip_remove(). In this case we'd only have to call
+	 * clk_unprepare() after pwmchip_remove().
+	 *
+	 */
+	if (pwm_is_enabled(pc->chip.pwms))
+		clk_disable(pc->clk);
+
 	clk_unprepare(pc->clk);
 
 	return pwmchip_remove(&pc->chip);
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1421703 — [PATCH v3 09/14] regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time

FromBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 09/14] regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time
Message-ID<rJSFQ-2Rh-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1421700
The PWM attached to a PWM regulator device might have been previously
configured by the bootloader.
Make sure the bootloader and linux config are in sync, and adjust the PWM
config if that's not the case.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
---
 drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 8 +++-----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
index ab3cc02..524b43f 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
@@ -285,11 +285,9 @@ static int pwm_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * FIXME: pwm_apply_args() should be removed when switching to the
-	 * atomic PWM API.
-	 */
-	pwm_apply_args(drvdata->pwm);
+	ret = pwm_adjust_config(drvdata->pwm);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	regulator = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev,
 					    &drvdata->desc, &config);
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1421704 — [PATCH v3 02/14] pwm: Add two helpers to ease relative duty cycle manipulation

FromBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 02/14] pwm: Add two helpers to ease relative duty cycle manipulation
Message-ID<rJSFQ-2Rh-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1421700
The PWM framework expects PWM users to configure the duty cycle in
nanoseconds, but most users just want to express this duty cycle
relatively to the period value (i.e. duty_cycle = 33% of the period).
Add the pwm_{get,set}_relative_duty_cycle() helpers to ease this kind
of conversion.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
---
 include/linux/pwm.h | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
index a100f6e..05e4ea4 100644
--- a/include/linux/pwm.h
+++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
@@ -181,6 +181,62 @@ static inline void pwm_init_state(const struct pwm_device *pwm,
 }
 
 /**
+ * pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle() - Get a relative duty_cycle value
+ * @state: PWM state to extract the duty_cycle from
+ * @scale: target scale of the relative duty cycle
+ *
+ * This functions converts the absolute duty_cycle stored in @state
+ * (expressed in nanosecond) into a value relative to the period.
+ * For example if you want to get the duty_cycle expressed in percent,
+ * call:
+ *
+ * pwm_get_state(pwm, &state);
+ * duty = pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&state, 100);
+ */
+static inline unsigned int
+pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(const struct pwm_state *state, unsigned int scale)
+{
+	if (!state->period)
+		return 0;
+
+	return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)state->duty_cycle * scale,
+				     state->period);
+}
+
+/**
+ * pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle() - Set a relative duty_cycle value
+ * @state: PWM state to fill
+ * @duty_cycle: relative duty_cycle value
+ * @scale: scale in which @duty_cycle is expressed
+ *
+ * This functions converts a relative duty_cycle into an absolute one
+ * (expressed in nanoseconds), and put the result in state->duty_cycle.
+ *
+ * For example if you want to configure a 50% duty_cycle, call:
+ *
+ * pwm_init_state(pwm, &state);
+ * pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&state, 50, 100);
+ * pwm_apply_state(pwm, &state);
+ *
+ * This functions returns -EINVAL if @duty_cycle and/or @scale are
+ * inconsistent (@scale == 0 or @duty_cycle > @scale).
+ */
+static inline int
+pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(struct pwm_state *state, unsigned int duty_cycle,
+			    unsigned int scale)
+{
+	/* Make sure @scale is > 0 and @duty_cycle <= @scale */
+	if (!scale || duty_cycle > scale)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)duty_cycle *
+						  state->period,
+						  scale);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+/**
  * struct pwm_ops - PWM controller operations
  * @request: optional hook for requesting a PWM
  * @free: optional hook for freeing a PWM
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1421706 — [PATCH v3 08/14] pwm: sti: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs

FromBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 08/14] pwm: sti: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs
Message-ID<rJSFQ-2Rh-43@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1421700
The current logic will disable the PWM clk even if a PWM was left
enabled by the bootloader (because it's controlling a critical device
like a regulator for example).
Keep the PWM clk enabled if at least one PWM is enabled to avoid any
glitches.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c
index 6300d3e..5bda51d 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ static int sti_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	struct sti_pwm_compat_data *cdata;
 	struct sti_pwm_chip *pc;
 	struct resource *res;
-	int ret;
+	int i, ret;
 
 	pc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!pc)
@@ -391,7 +391,7 @@ static int sti_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	ret = clk_prepare(pc->clk);
+	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(dev, "failed to prepare clock\n");
 		return ret;
@@ -409,6 +409,16 @@ static int sti_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * Keep the PWM clk enabled if some PWMs appear to be up and
+	 * running.
+	 */
+	for (i = 0; i < pc->chip.npwm; i++) {
+		if (pwm_is_enabled(&pc->chip.pwms[i]))
+			clk_enable(pc->clk);
+	}
+	clk_disable(pc->clk);
+
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1421707 — [PATCH v3 13/14] regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases

FromBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 13/14] regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases
Message-ID<rJSFQ-2Rh-45@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1421700
The continuous mode allows one to declare a PWM regulator without having
to declare the voltage <-> dutycycle association table. It works fine as
long as your voltage(dutycycle) function is linear, but also has the
following constraints:

- dutycycle for min_uV = 0%
- dutycycle for max_uV = 100%
- dutycycle for min_uV < dutycycle for max_uV

While the linearity constraint is acceptable for now, we sometimes need to
restrict of the PWM range (to limit the maximum/minimum voltage for
example) or have a min_uV_dutycycle > max_uV_dutycycle (this could be
tweaked with PWM polarity, but not all PWMs support inverted polarity).

Add the pwm-dutycycle-range and pwm-dutycycle-unit DT properties to define
such constraints. If those properties are not defined, the PWM regulator
use the default pwm-dutycycle-range = <0 100> and
pwm-dutycycle-unit = <100> values (existing behavior).

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
---
 drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
index 80d083f..fa1c74c 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
@@ -21,6 +21,12 @@
 #include <linux/of_device.h>
 #include <linux/pwm.h>
 
+struct pwm_continuous_reg_data {
+	unsigned int min_uV_dutycycle;
+	unsigned int max_uV_dutycycle;
+	unsigned int dutycycle_unit;
+};
+
 struct pwm_regulator_data {
 	/*  Shared */
 	struct pwm_device *pwm;
@@ -28,6 +34,9 @@ struct pwm_regulator_data {
 	/* Voltage table */
 	struct pwm_voltages *duty_cycle_table;
 
+	/* Continuous mode info */
+	struct pwm_continuous_reg_data continuous;
+
 	/* regulator descriptor */
 	struct regulator_desc desc;
 
@@ -132,31 +141,77 @@ static int pwm_regulator_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *dev)
 static int pwm_regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 {
 	struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
+	unsigned int min_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.min_uV_dutycycle;
+	unsigned int max_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.max_uV_dutycycle;
+	unsigned int duty_unit = drvdata->continuous.dutycycle_unit;
 	int min_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
-	int diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - min_uV;
+	int max_uV = rdev->constraints->max_uV;
+	int diff_uV = max_uV - min_uV;
 	struct pwm_state pstate;
+	unsigned int diff_duty;
+	unsigned int voltage;
 
 	pwm_get_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
 
-	return min_uV + pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, diff);
+	voltage = pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, duty_unit);
+
+	/*
+	 * The dutycycle for min_uV might be greater than the one for max_uV.
+	 * This is happening when the user needs an inversed polarity, but the
+	 * PWM device does not support inversing it in hardware.
+	 */
+	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty) {
+		voltage = min_uV_duty - voltage;
+		diff_duty = min_uV_duty - max_uV_duty;
+	} else {
+		voltage = voltage - min_uV_duty;
+		diff_duty = max_uV_duty - min_uV_duty;
+	}
+
+	voltage = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)voltage * diff_uV, diff_duty);
+
+	return voltage + min_uV;
 }
 
 static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
-					int min_uV, int max_uV,
-					unsigned *selector)
+				     int req_min_uV, int req_max_uV,
+				     unsigned int *selector)
 {
 	struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
+	unsigned int min_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.min_uV_dutycycle;
+	unsigned int max_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.max_uV_dutycycle;
+	unsigned int duty_unit = drvdata->continuous.dutycycle_unit;
 	unsigned int ramp_delay = rdev->constraints->ramp_delay;
-	unsigned int req_diff = min_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
+	int min_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
+	int max_uV = rdev->constraints->max_uV;
+	int diff_uV = max_uV - min_uV;
 	struct pwm_state pstate;
-	unsigned int diff;
+	unsigned int diff_duty;
+	unsigned int dutycycle;
 	int ret;
 
 	pwm_init_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
-	diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
 
-	/* We pass diff as the scale to get a uV precision. */
-	pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, req_diff, diff);
+	/*
+	 * The dutycycle for min_uV might be greater than the one for max_uV.
+	 * This is happening when the user needs an inversed polarity, but the
+	 * PWM device does not support inversing it in hardware.
+	 */
+	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty)
+		diff_duty = min_uV_duty - max_uV_duty;
+	else
+		diff_duty = max_uV_duty - min_uV_duty;
+
+	dutycycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)(req_min_uV - min_uV) *
+					  diff_duty,
+					  diff_uV);
+
+	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty)
+		dutycycle = min_uV_duty - dutycycle;
+	else
+		dutycycle = min_uV_duty + dutycycle;
+
+	pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, dutycycle, duty_unit);
 
 	ret = pwm_apply_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
 	if (ret) {
@@ -237,11 +292,28 @@ static int pwm_regulator_init_table(struct platform_device *pdev,
 static int pwm_regulator_init_continuous(struct platform_device *pdev,
 					 struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata)
 {
+	u32 dutycycle_range[2] = { 0, 100 };
+	u32 dutycycle_unit = 100;
+
 	memcpy(&drvdata->ops, &pwm_regulator_voltage_continuous_ops,
 	       sizeof(drvdata->ops));
 	drvdata->desc.ops = &drvdata->ops;
 	drvdata->desc.continuous_voltage_range = true;
 
+	of_property_read_u32_array(pdev->dev.of_node,
+				   "pwm-dutycycle-range",
+				   dutycycle_range, 2);
+	of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "pwm-dutycycle-unit",
+			     &dutycycle_unit);
+
+	if (dutycycle_range[0] > dutycycle_unit ||
+	    dutycycle_range[1] > dutycycle_unit)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	drvdata->continuous.dutycycle_unit = dutycycle_unit;
+	drvdata->continuous.min_uV_dutycycle = dutycycle_range[0];
+	drvdata->continuous.max_uV_dutycycle = dutycycle_range[1];
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1421708 — [PATCH v3 03/14] pwm: rockchip: Fix period and duty_cycle approximation

FromBoris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date2016-06-14 11:20 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 03/14] pwm: rockchip: Fix period and duty_cycle approximation
Message-ID<rJSFQ-2Rh-47@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1421700
The current implementation always round down the duty and period
values, while it would be better to round them to the closest integer.

These changes are needed in preparation of atomic update support to
prevent a period/duty cycle drift when executing several time the
'pwm_get_state() / modify / pwm_apply_state()' sequence.

Say you have an expected period of 3.333 us and a clk rate of
112.666667 MHz -- the clock frequency doesn't divide evenly,
so the period (stashed in nanoseconds) shrinks when we convert to
the register value and back, as follows:

  pwm_apply_state(): register = period * 112666667 / 1000000000;
  pwm_get_state(): period = register * 1000000000 / 112666667;

or in other words:

  period = period * 112666667 / 1000000000 * 1000000000 / 112666667;

which yields a sequence like:

  3333 -> 3328
  3328 -> 3319
  3319 -> 3310
  3310 -> 3301
  3301 -> 3292
  3292 -> ... (etc) ...

With this patch, we'd see instead:

  period = div_round_closest(period * 112666667, 1000000000) *
	   1000000000 / 112666667;

which yields a stable sequence:

  3333 -> 3337
  3337 -> 3337
  3337 -> ... (etc) ...

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index 7d9cc90..68d72ce 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -114,12 +114,11 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	 * default prescaler value for all practical clock rate values.
 	 */
 	div = clk_rate * period_ns;
-	do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
-	period = div;
+	period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(div,
+				       pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
 
 	div = clk_rate * duty_ns;
-	do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
-	duty = div;
+	duty = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
 
 	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
 	if (ret)
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web