Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Nov 2018 11:59:22 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] pwm: bcm-kona: apply pwm settings on enable |
| |
Hello,
adding Tim Kryger as the initial author of the bcm-kona driver to Cc:. Maybe he can shed some light to the questions below?
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 11:47:17AM +0100, Clément Péron wrote: > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 17:29, Uwe Kleine-König > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 10:36:13AM +0100, Clément Péron wrote: > > > From: Suji Velupillai <suji.velupillai@broadcom.com> > > > > > > When pwm_bl framework calls enable, a call to pwm_is_enabled(pwm) still > > > return false, this prevents the backlight being turn on at boot time. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suji Velupillai <suji.velupillai@broadcom.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <peron.clem@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c | 16 +++++++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c > > > index 09a95aeb3a70..d991d53c4b38 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c > > > @@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ static void kona_pwmc_apply_settings(struct kona_pwmc *kp, unsigned int chan) > > > ndelay(400); > > > } > > > > > > -static int kona_pwmc_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > > > - int duty_ns, int period_ns) > > > +static int __pwmc_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > > > + int duty_ns, int period_ns, bool pwmc_enabled) > > > { > > > struct kona_pwmc *kp = to_kona_pwmc(chip); > > > u64 val, div, rate; > > > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static int kona_pwmc_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > > > * always calculated above to ensure the new values are > > > * validated immediately instead of on enable. > > > */ > > > - if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) { > > > + if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm) || pwmc_enabled) { > > > > Having pwm-API-calls in hw-drivers is ugly. Apart from not giving the > > intended return code this function should IMHO be reserved to pwm > > consumers. The underlaying problem is that pwm-bl does: > > > > pwm_config(pwm, duty_cycle, period); > > pwm_enable(pwm); > > > > and expects that the duty_cycle and period is used then. Doesn't > > everything works just fine if the if-block is always executed? > > Tested and works fine for me. But I only have a Cygnus proc. > Maybe there is some issue with Kona as explained by the comment (even > if I don't understand it well). > > * Don't apply settings if disabled. The period and duty cycle are > * always calculated above to ensure the new values are > * validated immediately instead of on enable.
I wouldn't understand that as "If you apply settings on a disabled PWM a kitten dies". I think it only means: At the current point in time duty_cycle and period are not important as the hardware is off. So don't bother to write these values to the hardware.
@Tim: Do you think (or can test if) there is a problem when doing
- if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) { + if (1) {
in kona_pwmc_config? (For sure the comment needs adaption and the if (1) shouldn't make it into the driver, just used that as shorthand for the change I want to suggest.)
But still better than dropping the check is to convert the driver to the atomic API. With that this problem would simply not occur.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
| |