Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1531048 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-28 07:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-11-29 09:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2 Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> - 2016-11-28 07:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-11-28 09:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2 Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> - 2016-11-28 21:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-11-29 09:30 +0100
| From | Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 07:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2 |
| Message-ID | <sIn8S-6mn-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Dear Stefan, Boris,
> On 2016-11-23 00:38, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:33 -0800
> > Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-11-01 00:10, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> >> > This commit provides apply() callback implementation for i.MX's
> >> > PWMv2.
> >> >
> >> > Suggested-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> >> > Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon
> >> > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz
> >> > Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon
> >> > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> ---
> >> > Changes for v3:
> >> > - Remove ipg clock enable/disable functions
> >> >
> >> > Changes for v2:
> >> > - None
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 70
> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file
> >> > changed, 70 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> >> > index ebe9b0c..cd53c05 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> >> > @@ -159,6 +159,75 @@ static void imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(struct
> >> > pwm_chip *chip, }
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +static int imx_pwm_apply_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
> >> > pwm_device *pwm,
> >> > + struct pwm_state *state)
> >> > +{
> >> > + unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
> >> > + struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
> >> > + struct pwm_state cstate;
> >> > + unsigned long long c;
> >> > + u32 cr = 0;
> >> > + int ret;
> >> > +
> >> > + pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
> >> > +
> >>
> >> Couldn't we do:
> >>
> >> if (cstate.enabled) { ...
> >>
> >> > + c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> >> > + c *= state->period;
> >> > +
> >> > + do_div(c, 1000000000);
> >> > + period_cycles = c;
> >> > +
> >> > + prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
> >> > +
> >> > + period_cycles /= prescale;
> >> > + c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> >> > state->duty_cycle;
> >> > + do_div(c, state->period);
> >> > + duty_cycles = c;
> >> > +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * according to imx pwm RM, the real period value
> >> > should be
> >> > + * PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (period_cycles > 2)
> >> > + period_cycles -= 2;
> >> > + else
> >> > + period_cycles = 0;
> >> > +
> >> > + /* Enable the clock if the PWM is being enabled. */
> >> > + if (state->enabled && !cstate.enabled) {
> >> > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> >> > + if (ret)
> >> > + return ret;
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already
> >> > enabled, and flush
> >> > + * the FIFO if the PWM was disabled and is about to be
> >> > enabled.
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (cstate.enabled)
> >> > + imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> >> > + else if (state->enabled)
> >> > + imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> >> > +
> >> > + writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> >> > + writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> >> > +
> >> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> >> > + MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> >> > + MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH;
> >> > +
> >> > + if (state->enabled)
> >> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_EN;
> >>
> >> } else if (state->enabled) {
> >> imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> >> }
> >>
> >> and get rid of the if (state->enabled) in between? This would safe
> >> us useless recalculation when disabling the controller...
> >
> > I get your point, but I'm pretty sure your proposal does not do what
> > you want (remember that cstate is the current state, and state is
> > the new state to apply).
> >
> > Something like that would work better:
> >
> > if (state->enabled) {
>
> Oops, yes, got that wrong. state->enabled is what I meant.
>
> > c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > c *= state->period;
> >
> > do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > period_cycles = c;
> >
> > prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
> >
> > period_cycles /= prescale;
> > c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> > state->duty_cycle;
> > do_div(c, state->period);
> > duty_cycles = c;
> >
> > /*
> > * According to imx pwm RM, the real period value
> > * should be PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> > */
> > if (period_cycles > 2)
> > period_cycles -= 2;
> > else
> > period_cycles = 0;
> >
> > /*
> > * Enable the clock if the PWM is not already
> > * enabled.
> > */
> > if (!cstate.enabled) {
> > ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already
> > * enabled, and flush the FIFO if the PWM was
> > disabled
> > * and is about to be enabled.
> > */
> > if (cstate.enabled)
> > imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> > else
> > imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> >
> > writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> >
> > writel(MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> > MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> > MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH |
> > MX3_PWMCR_EN,
> > imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> > } else {
> >
> > writel(0, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> >
> > /* Disable the clock if the PWM is currently
> > enabled. */ if (cstate.enabled)
> > clk_disable_unprepare(imx->clk_per);
> > }
> >
> >
> > This being said, I'm a bit concerned by the way this driver handles
> > PWM config requests.
> > It seems that the new config request is queued, and nothing
> > guarantees
>
> Not sure if that is true. The RM says: "A change in the period value
> due to a write in PWM_PWMPR results in the counter being reset to
> zero and the start of a new count period."
>
> And for PWMSAR: "When a new value is written, the duty cycle changes
> after the current period is over."
>
> So I guess writing the period basically makes sure the next value from
> PWMSAR will be active immediately...
>
>
> > that it is actually applied when the
> > pwm_apply/config/enable/disable() functions return.
>
>
> Given that the driver did it like that since quite some time, I am
> assuming it mostly works in practice.
>
> I would rather prefer to do that conversion to atomic PWM API now, and
> fix that in a second step...
I'm also for fixing one problem in a time. The "PWM ->apply()" set of
patches now tries to fix all problems in IMX PWM driver.
Could we agree on the scope of this work? I mean what should be
included to "->apply()" rework and what will be fixed latter?
Frankly, I think that this patch series comes to the point where it is
not manageable anymore.
Please also keep in mind that I do have iMX6q system, Stefan has imx7
and Sasha has HW with PWMv1 working.
Changing the driver in N different places not related to the
"->apply()" atomicity support (the ipg clock, FIFO) requires far more
work and testing.
Best regards,
Łukasz Majewski
>
> >
> > This approach has several flaws IMO:
> >
> > 1/ I'm not sure this is what the PWM users expect. Getting your
> > request queued with no guarantees that it is applied can be weird
> > in some cases (especially when the user changes the PWM config
> > several times in a short period of time).
> > 2/ In the disable path, you queue a "stop PWM" request, but you're
> > not sure that it's actually dequeued before the per clk is disabled.
> > What happens in that case? And more importantly, what happens
> > when the PWM is re-enabled to apply a new config? AFAICS, there
> > might be a short period of time where the re-enabled PWM is
> > actually running with the old config until we flush the command
> > queue and queue a new command.
> > 3/ The queueing approach complicates the whole logic. You have to
> > flush the FIFO in some cases, or wait for an empty slots if too
> > many commands are queued.
> > Forcing imx_pwm_apply_v2() to wait for the config request to be
> > applied should simplify the whole thing, because you will always
> > be guaranteed that the FIFO is empty, and that the current
> > configuration is the last requested one.
> >
>
> --
> Stefan
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 09:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sIpkl-84F-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1531048 |
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 06:50:31 +0100
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
> Dear Stefan, Boris,
>
> > On 2016-11-23 00:38, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:33 -0800
> > > Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2016-11-01 00:10, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > >> > This commit provides apply() callback implementation for i.MX's
> > >> > PWMv2.
> > >> >
> > >> > Suggested-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> > >> > Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon
> > >> > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz
> > >> > Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon
> > >> > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> ---
> > >> > Changes for v3:
> > >> > - Remove ipg clock enable/disable functions
> > >> >
> > >> > Changes for v2:
> > >> > - None
> > >> > ---
> > >> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 70
> > >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file
> > >> > changed, 70 insertions(+)
> > >> >
> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > >> > index ebe9b0c..cd53c05 100644
> > >> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > >> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > >> > @@ -159,6 +159,75 @@ static void imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(struct
> > >> > pwm_chip *chip, }
> > >> > }
> > >> >
> > >> > +static int imx_pwm_apply_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
> > >> > pwm_device *pwm,
> > >> > + struct pwm_state *state)
> > >> > +{
> > >> > + unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
> > >> > + struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
> > >> > + struct pwm_state cstate;
> > >> > + unsigned long long c;
> > >> > + u32 cr = 0;
> > >> > + int ret;
> > >> > +
> > >> > + pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
> > >> > +
> > >>
> > >> Couldn't we do:
> > >>
> > >> if (cstate.enabled) { ...
> > >>
> > >> > + c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > >> > + c *= state->period;
> > >> > +
> > >> > + do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > >> > + period_cycles = c;
> > >> > +
> > >> > + prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
> > >> > +
> > >> > + period_cycles /= prescale;
> > >> > + c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> > >> > state->duty_cycle;
> > >> > + do_div(c, state->period);
> > >> > + duty_cycles = c;
> > >> > +
> > >> > + /*
> > >> > + * according to imx pwm RM, the real period value
> > >> > should be
> > >> > + * PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> > >> > + */
> > >> > + if (period_cycles > 2)
> > >> > + period_cycles -= 2;
> > >> > + else
> > >> > + period_cycles = 0;
> > >> > +
> > >> > + /* Enable the clock if the PWM is being enabled. */
> > >> > + if (state->enabled && !cstate.enabled) {
> > >> > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> > >> > + if (ret)
> > >> > + return ret;
> > >> > + }
> > >> > +
> > >> > + /*
> > >> > + * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already
> > >> > enabled, and flush
> > >> > + * the FIFO if the PWM was disabled and is about to be
> > >> > enabled.
> > >> > + */
> > >> > + if (cstate.enabled)
> > >> > + imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> > >> > + else if (state->enabled)
> > >> > + imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > >> > +
> > >> > + writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > >> > + writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> > >> > +
> > >> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> > >> > + MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> > >> > + MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH;
> > >> > +
> > >> > + if (state->enabled)
> > >> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_EN;
> > >>
> > >> } else if (state->enabled) {
> > >> imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> and get rid of the if (state->enabled) in between? This would safe
> > >> us useless recalculation when disabling the controller...
> > >
> > > I get your point, but I'm pretty sure your proposal does not do what
> > > you want (remember that cstate is the current state, and state is
> > > the new state to apply).
> > >
> > > Something like that would work better:
> > >
> > > if (state->enabled) {
> >
> > Oops, yes, got that wrong. state->enabled is what I meant.
> >
> > > c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > > c *= state->period;
> > >
> > > do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > > period_cycles = c;
> > >
> > > prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
> > >
> > > period_cycles /= prescale;
> > > c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> > > state->duty_cycle;
> > > do_div(c, state->period);
> > > duty_cycles = c;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * According to imx pwm RM, the real period value
> > > * should be PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> > > */
> > > if (period_cycles > 2)
> > > period_cycles -= 2;
> > > else
> > > period_cycles = 0;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Enable the clock if the PWM is not already
> > > * enabled.
> > > */
> > > if (!cstate.enabled) {
> > > ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already
> > > * enabled, and flush the FIFO if the PWM was
> > > disabled
> > > * and is about to be enabled.
> > > */
> > > if (cstate.enabled)
> > > imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> > > else
> > > imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > >
> > > writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > > writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> > >
> > > writel(MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> > > MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> > > MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH |
> > > MX3_PWMCR_EN,
> > > imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> > > } else {
> > >
> > > writel(0, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> > >
> > > /* Disable the clock if the PWM is currently
> > > enabled. */ if (cstate.enabled)
> > > clk_disable_unprepare(imx->clk_per);
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > This being said, I'm a bit concerned by the way this driver handles
> > > PWM config requests.
> > > It seems that the new config request is queued, and nothing
> > > guarantees
> >
> > Not sure if that is true. The RM says: "A change in the period value
> > due to a write in PWM_PWMPR results in the counter being reset to
> > zero and the start of a new count period."
> >
> > And for PWMSAR: "When a new value is written, the duty cycle changes
> > after the current period is over."
> >
> > So I guess writing the period basically makes sure the next value from
> > PWMSAR will be active immediately...
> >
> >
> > > that it is actually applied when the
> > > pwm_apply/config/enable/disable() functions return.
> >
> >
> > Given that the driver did it like that since quite some time, I am
> > assuming it mostly works in practice.
> >
> > I would rather prefer to do that conversion to atomic PWM API now, and
> > fix that in a second step...
>
> I'm also for fixing one problem in a time. The "PWM ->apply()" set of
> patches now tries to fix all problems in IMX PWM driver.
>
> Could we agree on the scope of this work? I mean what should be
> included to "->apply()" rework and what will be fixed latter?
I never asked to fix that in this series ;-), I was just pointing the
weird behavior of the existing code.
Let's focus on the atomic support for now.
>
> Frankly, I think that this patch series comes to the point where it is
> not manageable anymore.
>
> Please also keep in mind that I do have iMX6q system, Stefan has imx7
> and Sasha has HW with PWMv1 working.
>
> Changing the driver in N different places not related to the
> "->apply()" atomicity support (the ipg clock, FIFO) requires far more
> work and testing.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Łukasz Majewski
>
> >
> > >
> > > This approach has several flaws IMO:
> > >
> > > 1/ I'm not sure this is what the PWM users expect. Getting your
> > > request queued with no guarantees that it is applied can be weird
> > > in some cases (especially when the user changes the PWM config
> > > several times in a short period of time).
> > > 2/ In the disable path, you queue a "stop PWM" request, but you're
> > > not sure that it's actually dequeued before the per clk is disabled.
> > > What happens in that case? And more importantly, what happens
> > > when the PWM is re-enabled to apply a new config? AFAICS, there
> > > might be a short period of time where the re-enabled PWM is
> > > actually running with the old config until we flush the command
> > > queue and queue a new command.
> > > 3/ The queueing approach complicates the whole logic. You have to
> > > flush the FIFO in some cases, or wait for an empty slots if too
> > > many commands are queued.
> > > Forcing imx_pwm_apply_v2() to wait for the config request to be
> > > applied should simplify the whole thing, because you will always
> > > be guaranteed that the FIFO is empty, and that the current
> > > configuration is the last requested one.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Stefan
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sIB29-6Zn-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1531103 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Dear Boris, Stefan,
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 06:50:31 +0100
> Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
>
> > Dear Stefan, Boris,
> >
> > > On 2016-11-23 00:38, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:33 -0800
> > > > Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 2016-11-01 00:10, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > >> > This commit provides apply() callback implementation for
> > > >> > i.MX's PWMv2.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Suggested-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> > > >> > Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon
> > > >> > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz
> > > >> > Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon
> > > >> > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> ---
> > > >> > Changes for v3:
> > > >> > - Remove ipg clock enable/disable functions
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Changes for v2:
> > > >> > - None
> > > >> > ---
> > > >> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 70
> > > >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file
> > > >> > changed, 70 insertions(+)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > >> > index ebe9b0c..cd53c05 100644
> > > >> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > >> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > >> > @@ -159,6 +159,75 @@ static void
> > > >> > imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(struct pwm_chip *chip, }
> > > >> > }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > +static int imx_pwm_apply_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
> > > >> > pwm_device *pwm,
> > > >> > + struct pwm_state *state)
> > > >> > +{
> > > >> > + unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
> > > >> > + struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
> > > >> > + struct pwm_state cstate;
> > > >> > + unsigned long long c;
> > > >> > + u32 cr = 0;
> > > >> > + int ret;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
> > > >> > +
> > > >>
> > > >> Couldn't we do:
> > > >>
> > > >> if (cstate.enabled) { ...
> > > >>
> > > >> > + c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > > >> > + c *= state->period;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > > >> > + period_cycles = c;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + period_cycles /= prescale;
> > > >> > + c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> > > >> > state->duty_cycle;
> > > >> > + do_div(c, state->period);
> > > >> > + duty_cycles = c;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + /*
> > > >> > + * according to imx pwm RM, the real period value
> > > >> > should be
> > > >> > + * PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> > > >> > + */
> > > >> > + if (period_cycles > 2)
> > > >> > + period_cycles -= 2;
> > > >> > + else
> > > >> > + period_cycles = 0;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + /* Enable the clock if the PWM is being enabled. */
> > > >> > + if (state->enabled && !cstate.enabled) {
> > > >> > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> > > >> > + if (ret)
> > > >> > + return ret;
> > > >> > + }
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + /*
> > > >> > + * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already
> > > >> > enabled, and flush
> > > >> > + * the FIFO if the PWM was disabled and is about to
> > > >> > be enabled.
> > > >> > + */
> > > >> > + if (cstate.enabled)
> > > >> > + imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> > > >> > + else if (state->enabled)
> > > >> > + imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > > >> > + writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> > > >> > + MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> > > >> > + MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + if (state->enabled)
> > > >> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_EN;
> > > >>
> > > >> } else if (state->enabled) {
> > > >> imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> and get rid of the if (state->enabled) in between? This would
> > > >> safe us useless recalculation when disabling the
> > > >> controller...
> > > >
> > > > I get your point, but I'm pretty sure your proposal does not do
> > > > what you want (remember that cstate is the current state, and
> > > > state is the new state to apply).
> > > >
> > > > Something like that would work better:
> > > >
> > > > if (state->enabled) {
> > >
> > > Oops, yes, got that wrong. state->enabled is what I meant.
> > >
> > > > c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > > > c *= state->period;
> > > >
> > > > do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > > > period_cycles = c;
> > > >
> > > > prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
> > > >
> > > > period_cycles /= prescale;
> > > > c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> > > > state->duty_cycle;
> > > > do_div(c, state->period);
> > > > duty_cycles = c;
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * According to imx pwm RM, the real period
> > > > value
> > > > * should be PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> > > > */
> > > > if (period_cycles > 2)
> > > > period_cycles -= 2;
> > > > else
> > > > period_cycles = 0;
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Enable the clock if the PWM is not already
> > > > * enabled.
> > > > */
> > > > if (!cstate.enabled) {
> > > > ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is
> > > > already
> > > > * enabled, and flush the FIFO if the PWM was
> > > > disabled
> > > > * and is about to be enabled.
> > > > */
> > > > if (cstate.enabled)
> > > > imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> > > > else
> > > > imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > > >
> > > > writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base +
> > > > MX3_PWMSAR); writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> > > >
> > > > writel(MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> > > > MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> > > > MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN |
> > > > MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH | MX3_PWMCR_EN,
> > > > imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> > > > } else {
> > > >
> > > > writel(0, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> > > >
> > > > /* Disable the clock if the PWM is currently
> > > > enabled. */ if (cstate.enabled)
> > > > clk_disable_unprepare(imx->clk_per);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This being said, I'm a bit concerned by the way this driver
> > > > handles PWM config requests.
> > > > It seems that the new config request is queued, and nothing
> > > > guarantees
> > >
> > > Not sure if that is true. The RM says: "A change in the period
> > > value due to a write in PWM_PWMPR results in the counter being
> > > reset to zero and the start of a new count period."
> > >
> > > And for PWMSAR: "When a new value is written, the duty cycle
> > > changes after the current period is over."
> > >
> > > So I guess writing the period basically makes sure the next value
> > > from PWMSAR will be active immediately...
> > >
> > >
> > > > that it is actually applied when the
> > > > pwm_apply/config/enable/disable() functions return.
> > >
> > >
> > > Given that the driver did it like that since quite some time, I am
> > > assuming it mostly works in practice.
> > >
> > > I would rather prefer to do that conversion to atomic PWM API
> > > now, and fix that in a second step...
> >
> > I'm also for fixing one problem in a time. The "PWM ->apply()" set
> > of patches now tries to fix all problems in IMX PWM driver.
> >
> > Could we agree on the scope of this work? I mean what should be
> > included to "->apply()" rework and what will be fixed latter?
>
> I never asked to fix that in this series ;-), I was just pointing the
> weird behavior of the existing code.
>
> Let's focus on the atomic support for now.
So Boris, you don't have any comments to the atomic support patches? :-)
Stefan, do you require to change the ipg stuff in the atomic series or
could it be done as a subsequent patch?
If you don't have any more questions, I will prepare next patch
iteration according to Stefan comments.
Best regards,
Łukasz Majewski
>
> >
> > Frankly, I think that this patch series comes to the point where it
> > is not manageable anymore.
> >
> > Please also keep in mind that I do have iMX6q system, Stefan has
> > imx7 and Sasha has HW with PWMv1 working.
> >
> > Changing the driver in N different places not related to the
> > "->apply()" atomicity support (the ipg clock, FIFO) requires far
> > more work and testing.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Łukasz Majewski
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This approach has several flaws IMO:
> > > >
> > > > 1/ I'm not sure this is what the PWM users expect. Getting your
> > > > request queued with no guarantees that it is applied can be
> > > > weird in some cases (especially when the user changes the PWM
> > > > config several times in a short period of time).
> > > > 2/ In the disable path, you queue a "stop PWM" request, but
> > > > you're not sure that it's actually dequeued before the per clk
> > > > is disabled. What happens in that case? And more importantly,
> > > > what happens when the PWM is re-enabled to apply a new config?
> > > > AFAICS, there might be a short period of time where the
> > > > re-enabled PWM is actually running with the old config until we
> > > > flush the command queue and queue a new command.
> > > > 3/ The queueing approach complicates the whole logic. You have
> > > > to flush the FIFO in some cases, or wait for an empty slots if
> > > > too many commands are queued.
> > > > Forcing imx_pwm_apply_v2() to wait for the config request to
> > > > be applied should simplify the whole thing, because you will
> > > > always be guaranteed that the FIFO is empty, and that the
> > > > current configuration is the last requested one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stefan
> >
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sILXz-5RH-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1531650 |
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 21:48:57 +0100
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
> Dear Boris, Stefan,
>
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 06:50:31 +0100
> > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Stefan, Boris,
> > >
> > > > On 2016-11-23 00:38, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:33 -0800
> > > > > Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 2016-11-01 00:10, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > > >> > This commit provides apply() callback implementation for
> > > > >> > i.MX's PWMv2.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Suggested-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> > > > >> > Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon
> > > > >> > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz
> > > > >> > Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon
> > > > >> > <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> ---
> > > > >> > Changes for v3:
> > > > >> > - Remove ipg clock enable/disable functions
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Changes for v2:
> > > > >> > - None
> > > > >> > ---
> > > > >> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 70
> > > > >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file
> > > > >> > changed, 70 insertions(+)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > >> > index ebe9b0c..cd53c05 100644
> > > > >> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > >> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > >> > @@ -159,6 +159,75 @@ static void
> > > > >> > imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(struct pwm_chip *chip, }
> > > > >> > }
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > +static int imx_pwm_apply_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
> > > > >> > pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > >> > + struct pwm_state *state)
> > > > >> > +{
> > > > >> > + unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
> > > > >> > + struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
> > > > >> > + struct pwm_state cstate;
> > > > >> > + unsigned long long c;
> > > > >> > + u32 cr = 0;
> > > > >> > + int ret;
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Couldn't we do:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> if (cstate.enabled) { ...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > + c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > > > >> > + c *= state->period;
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > > > >> > + period_cycles = c;
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + period_cycles /= prescale;
> > > > >> > + c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> > > > >> > state->duty_cycle;
> > > > >> > + do_div(c, state->period);
> > > > >> > + duty_cycles = c;
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + /*
> > > > >> > + * according to imx pwm RM, the real period value
> > > > >> > should be
> > > > >> > + * PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> > > > >> > + */
> > > > >> > + if (period_cycles > 2)
> > > > >> > + period_cycles -= 2;
> > > > >> > + else
> > > > >> > + period_cycles = 0;
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + /* Enable the clock if the PWM is being enabled. */
> > > > >> > + if (state->enabled && !cstate.enabled) {
> > > > >> > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> > > > >> > + if (ret)
> > > > >> > + return ret;
> > > > >> > + }
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + /*
> > > > >> > + * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already
> > > > >> > enabled, and flush
> > > > >> > + * the FIFO if the PWM was disabled and is about to
> > > > >> > be enabled.
> > > > >> > + */
> > > > >> > + if (cstate.enabled)
> > > > >> > + imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> > > > >> > + else if (state->enabled)
> > > > >> > + imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > > > >> > + writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> > > > >> > + MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> > > > >> > + MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH;
> > > > >> > +
> > > > >> > + if (state->enabled)
> > > > >> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_EN;
> > > > >>
> > > > >> } else if (state->enabled) {
> > > > >> imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > > > >> }
> > > > >>
> > > > >> and get rid of the if (state->enabled) in between? This would
> > > > >> safe us useless recalculation when disabling the
> > > > >> controller...
> > > > >
> > > > > I get your point, but I'm pretty sure your proposal does not do
> > > > > what you want (remember that cstate is the current state, and
> > > > > state is the new state to apply).
> > > > >
> > > > > Something like that would work better:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (state->enabled) {
> > > >
> > > > Oops, yes, got that wrong. state->enabled is what I meant.
> > > >
> > > > > c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > > > > c *= state->period;
> > > > >
> > > > > do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > > > > period_cycles = c;
> > > > >
> > > > > prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
> > > > >
> > > > > period_cycles /= prescale;
> > > > > c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> > > > > state->duty_cycle;
> > > > > do_div(c, state->period);
> > > > > duty_cycles = c;
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * According to imx pwm RM, the real period
> > > > > value
> > > > > * should be PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (period_cycles > 2)
> > > > > period_cycles -= 2;
> > > > > else
> > > > > period_cycles = 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * Enable the clock if the PWM is not already
> > > > > * enabled.
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (!cstate.enabled) {
> > > > > ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > return ret;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is
> > > > > already
> > > > > * enabled, and flush the FIFO if the PWM was
> > > > > disabled
> > > > > * and is about to be enabled.
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (cstate.enabled)
> > > > > imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> > > > > else
> > > > > imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
> > > > >
> > > > > writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base +
> > > > > MX3_PWMSAR); writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> > > > >
> > > > > writel(MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> > > > > MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> > > > > MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN |
> > > > > MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH | MX3_PWMCR_EN,
> > > > > imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> > > > > } else {
> > > > >
> > > > > writel(0, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Disable the clock if the PWM is currently
> > > > > enabled. */ if (cstate.enabled)
> > > > > clk_disable_unprepare(imx->clk_per);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This being said, I'm a bit concerned by the way this driver
> > > > > handles PWM config requests.
> > > > > It seems that the new config request is queued, and nothing
> > > > > guarantees
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if that is true. The RM says: "A change in the period
> > > > value due to a write in PWM_PWMPR results in the counter being
> > > > reset to zero and the start of a new count period."
> > > >
> > > > And for PWMSAR: "When a new value is written, the duty cycle
> > > > changes after the current period is over."
> > > >
> > > > So I guess writing the period basically makes sure the next value
> > > > from PWMSAR will be active immediately...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > that it is actually applied when the
> > > > > pwm_apply/config/enable/disable() functions return.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Given that the driver did it like that since quite some time, I am
> > > > assuming it mostly works in practice.
> > > >
> > > > I would rather prefer to do that conversion to atomic PWM API
> > > > now, and fix that in a second step...
> > >
> > > I'm also for fixing one problem in a time. The "PWM ->apply()" set
> > > of patches now tries to fix all problems in IMX PWM driver.
> > >
> > > Could we agree on the scope of this work? I mean what should be
> > > included to "->apply()" rework and what will be fixed latter?
> >
> > I never asked to fix that in this series ;-), I was just pointing the
> > weird behavior of the existing code.
> >
> > Let's focus on the atomic support for now.
>
> So Boris, you don't have any comments to the atomic support patches? :-)
Nope.
>
> Stefan, do you require to change the ipg stuff in the atomic series or
> could it be done as a subsequent patch?
>
> If you don't have any more questions, I will prepare next patch
> iteration according to Stefan comments.
>
> Best regards,
> Łukasz Majewski
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web