lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pwm: cros-ec: Let cros_ec_pwm_get_state() return the last applied state
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:56:35AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:27:13AM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > Hi Uwe,
> >
> > Adding Daniel and Lee to the discussion ...
>
> Thanks!
>
> > On 8/10/19 22:31, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 06:33:15PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > >>> A few thoughts to your approach here ...:
> > >>>
> > >>> - Would it make sense to only store duty_cycle and enabled in the
> > >>> driver struct?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yes, in fact, my first approach (that I didn't send) was only storing enabled
> > >> and duty cycle. For some reason I ended storing the full pwm_state struct, but I
> > >> guess is not really needed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> - Which driver is the consumer of your pwm? If I understand correctly
> > >>> the following sequence is the bad one:
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The consumer is the pwm_bl driver. Actually I'n trying to identify
> > >> other consumers.
> > >
> >
> > So far, the pwm_bl driver is the only consumer of cros-ec-pwm.
> >
> > > Ah, I see why I missed to identify the problem back when I checked this
> > > driver. The problem is not that .duty_cycle isn't set but there .enabled
> > > isn't set. So maybe we just want:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > index 2201b8c78641..0468c6ee4448 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ static int pwm_backlight_update_status(struct backlight_device *bl)
> > > if (brightness > 0) {
> > > pwm_get_state(pb->pwm, &state);
> > > state.duty_cycle = compute_duty_cycle(pb, brightness);
> > > + state.enabled = true;
> > > pwm_apply_state(pb->pwm, &state);
> > > pwm_backlight_power_on(pb);
> > > } else
> > >
> > > ? On a side note: It's IMHO strange that pwm_backlight_power_on
> > > reconfigures the PWM once more.
> > >
> >
> > Looking again to the pwm_bl code, now, I am not sure this is correct (although
> > it probably solves the problem for me).
>
> Looking at the pwm_bl code I wouldn't accept the above as it is but I'd
> almost certainly accept a patch to pwm_bl to move the PWM enable/disable
> out of both the power on/off functions so the duty-cycle/enable or
> disable can happen in one go within the update_status function. I don't
> think such a change would interfere with the power and enable sequencing
> needed by panels and it would therefore be a nice continuation of the
> work to convert over to the pwm_apply_state() API.

OK for me. Enric, do you care enough to come up with a patch for pwm_bl?
I'd expect that this alone should already fix your issue.

> None of the above has anything to do with what is right or wrong for
> the PWM API evolution. Of course, if this thread does conclude that it
> is OK the duty cycle of a disabled PWM to be retained for some drivers
> and not others then I'd hope to see some WARN_ON()s added to the PWM
> framework to help bring problems to the surface with all drivers.

I think it's not possible to add a reliable WARN_ON for that issue. It
is quite expected that .get_state returns something that doesn't
completely match the requested configuration. So if a consumer requests

.duty_cycle = 1
.period = 100000000
.enabled = false

pwm_get_state possibly returns .duty_cycle = 0 even for drivers/hardware
that has a concept of duty_cycle for disabled hardware.

A bit this is addressed in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1147517/.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-09 12:17    [W:0.066 / U:17.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site