lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] pwm: sprd: Add Spreadtrum PWM support
From
Date
On 14. 08. 19 11:23, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Baolin,
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 04:42:28PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 23:16, Uwe Kleine-König
>> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:46:41PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>> [...]
>> Not really, our hardware's method is, when you changed a new
>> configuration (MOD or duty is changed) , the hardware will wait for a
>> while to complete current period, then change to the new period.
>
> Can you describe that in more detail? This doesn't explain why MOD must be
> configured before DUTY. Is there another reason for that?
>
>>>> +static int sprd_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>>> + struct pwm_state *state)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct sprd_pwm_chip *spc =
>>>> + container_of(chip, struct sprd_pwm_chip, chip);
>>>> + struct sprd_pwm_chn *chn = &spc->chn[pwm->hwpwm];
>>>> + struct pwm_state cstate;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
>>>
>>> I don't like it when pwm drivers call pwm_get_state(). If ever
>>> pwm_get_state would take a lock, this would deadlock as the lock is
>>> probably already taken when your .apply() callback is running. Moreover
>>> the (expensive) calculations are not used appropriately. See below.
>>
>> I do not think so, see:
>>
>> static inline void pwm_get_state(const struct pwm_device *pwm, struct
>> pwm_state *state)
>> {
>> *state = pwm->state;
>> }
>
> OK, the PWM framework currently caches this for you. Still I would
> prefer if you didn't call PWM API functions in your lowlevel driver.
> There is (up to now) nothing bad that will happen if you do it anyhow,
> but when the PWM framework evolves it might (and I want to work on such
> an evolution). You must not call clk_get_rate() in a .set_rate()
> callback of a clock either.
>
>>>> + if (state->enabled) {
>>>> + if (!cstate.enabled) {
>>>
>>> To just know the value of cstate.enabled you only need to read the
>>> register with the ENABLE flag. That is cheaper than calling get_state.
>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * The clocks to PWM channel has to be enabled first
>>>> + * before writing to the registers.
>>>> + */
>>>> + ret = clk_bulk_prepare_enable(SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS,
>>>> + chn->clks);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + dev_err(spc->dev,
>>>> + "failed to enable pwm%u clocks\n",
>>>> + pwm->hwpwm);
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (state->period != cstate.period ||
>>>> + state->duty_cycle != cstate.duty_cycle) {
>>>
>>> This is a coarse check. If state->period and cstate.period only differ
>>> by one calling sprd_pwm_config(spc, pwm, state->duty_cycle,
>>> state->period) probably results in a noop. So you're doing an expensive
>>> division to get an unreliable check. It would be better to calculate the
>>> register values from the requested state and compare the register
>>> values. The costs are more or less the same than calling .get_state and
>>> the check is reliable. And you don't need to spend another division to
>>> calculate the new register values.
>>
>> Same as above comment.
>
> When taking the caching into account (which I wouldn't) the check is
> still incomplete. OK, you could argue avoiding the recalculation in 90%
> (to just say some number) of the cases where it is unnecessary is good.
>
>>>
>>>> + ret = sprd_pwm_config(spc, pwm, state->duty_cycle,
>>>> + state->period);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_ENABLE, 1);
>>>> + } else if (cstate.enabled) {
>>>> + sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_ENABLE, 0);
>>>> +
>>>> + clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS, chn->clks);
>>>
>>> Assuming writing SPRD_PWM_ENABLE = 0 to the hardware completes the
>>> currently running period and the write doesn't block that long: Does
>>> disabling the clocks interfere with completing the period?
>>
>> Writing SPRD_PWM_ENABLE = 0 will stop the PWM immediately, will not
>> waiting for completing the currently period.
>
> The currently active period is supposed to be completed. If you cannot
> implement this please point this out as limitation at the top of the
> driver.
>
> Honestly I think most pwm users won't mind and they should get the
> possibility to tell they prefer pwm_apply_state to return immediately
> even if this could result in a spike. But we're not there yet.
> (Actually there are three things a PWM consumer might want:
>
> a) stop immediately;
> b) complete the currently running period, then stop and return only
> when the period is completed; or
> c) complete the currently running period and then stop, return immediately if
> possible.
>
> Currently the expected semantic is b).

Hi Uwe et all,

I am sorry for interrupting your discussion. From my (last year or so)
observation of the PWM mailing list I see this as a common pattern in
almost every submission of a new PWM driver. That is PWM driver authors
keep submitting solution a) and you tell them the expected behavior
is b).

Why is that? I hope that the fact that implementing a) is simpler
than b) is not the main reason. I believe that people think a)
is the correct solution.

I agree that smooth transition from one period/duty setting to
different setting makes sense. But I also believe the expected
behavior of setting enabled=0 is different. That is to stop
immediately the technology that is fed by the PWM signal.
Otherwise the concept of enabled/disabled does not make sense
because setting duty=0 would have the same effect.

So I still wonder where the expectation for b) is coming from.
What would be the physical/electrical reasoning for b)?
Why/how it can be dangerous/harmful for any device to stop the
PWM signal immediately?

Would be great to finally reach consensus on that so the expected
behavior can be documented. I know you already attempted that [1].
I think you have done a great job but I still consider the part
about state changes little controversial and unresolved.

Best regards,
Michal

[1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1021566/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-14 16:07    [W:0.074 / U:19.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site