This patchset adds drivers/pwm directory as suggested by Arnd Bergmann in
following discussion:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/118651
and also adds support for ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator. This is
currently used by ST's SPEAr platform and tested on the same.
Changes since V1:
- Moved driver to drivers/pwm/ directory from drivers/misc
- arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig updated accordingly.
Changes since earlier patchset:
- Moved driver to drivers/misc/ directory.
It was earlier reviewed as part of following patchset:
"[PATCH V6 00/17] Adding devices support for all spear machines"
Viresh Kumar (3):
drivers/pwm st_pwm: Add support for ST's Pulse Width Modulator
SPEAr3xx: Add machine support for ST's PWM IP
SPEAr3xx: Update defconfig for ST's PWM
MAINTAINERS | 5 +
arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig | 2 +
arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/include/mach/generic.h | 1 +
arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320.c | 16 +
arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320_evb.c | 1 +
drivers/Kconfig | 1 +
drivers/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 22 ++
drivers/pwm/Makefile | 5 +
drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c | 486 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
10 files changed, 540 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/Kconfig
create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/Makefile
create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c
--
1.7.2.2
This patch adds support for ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator. This is
currently used by ST's SPEAr platform and tested on the same.
This patch also adds drivers/pwm directory as suggested by Arnd Bergmann in
following discussion:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/118651
Reviewed-by: Stanley Miao <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
---
MAINTAINERS | 5 +
drivers/Kconfig | 1 +
drivers/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 22 +++
drivers/pwm/Makefile | 5 +
drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c | 486 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 520 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/Kconfig
create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/Makefile
create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 48b0a4f..4e8ffa4 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -6031,6 +6031,11 @@ M: Jan-Benedict Glaw <[email protected]>
S: Maintained
F: arch/alpha/kernel/srm_env.c
+ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator Support
+M: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
+S: Maintained
+F: drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c
+
STABLE BRANCH
M: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
L: [email protected]
diff --git a/drivers/Kconfig b/drivers/Kconfig
index 3bb154d..4d3bb12 100644
--- a/drivers/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/Kconfig
@@ -126,4 +126,5 @@ source "drivers/hwspinlock/Kconfig"
source "drivers/clocksource/Kconfig"
+source "drivers/pwm/Kconfig"
endmenu
diff --git a/drivers/Makefile b/drivers/Makefile
index 09f3232..c321763 100644
--- a/drivers/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/Makefile
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#
obj-y += gpio/
+obj-y += pwm/
obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/
obj-$(CONFIG_PARISC) += parisc/
obj-$(CONFIG_RAPIDIO) += rapidio/
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..85fd25c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+#
+# Pulse Width Modulator (PWM) devices
+#
+
+menuconfig PWMLIB
+ bool "PWM Support"
+ help
+ This enables PWM support for kernel. You only need to enable this, if
+ you also want to enable one or more of the PWM drivers below.
+
+ If unsure, say N.
+
+if PWMLIB
+
+config ST_PWM
+ tristate "ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator"
+ default n
+ help
+ Support for ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator. Currently it is
+ present and tested on SPEAr Platform only.
+
+endif # PWMLIB
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7c3b338
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+#
+# Makefile for PWM devices
+#
+
+obj-$(CONFIG_ST_PWM) += st_pwm.o
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..51084d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c
@@ -0,0 +1,486 @@
+/*
+ * drivers/pwm/st_pwm.c
+ *
+ * ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator driver
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2010-2011 ST Microelectronics
+ * Viresh Kumar<[email protected]>
+ *
+ * This file is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public
+ * License version 2. This program is licensed "as is" without any
+ * warranty of any kind, whether express or implied.
+ */
+
+/* Tested on ST's SPEAr Platform */
+
+#include <linux/clk.h>
+#include <linux/err.h>
+#include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/ioport.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/math64.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/pwm.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
+
+/* PWM registers and bits definitions */
+#define PWMCR 0x00
+#define PWMDCR 0x04
+#define PWMPCR 0x08
+
+#define PWM_EN_MASK 0x1
+#define MIN_PRESCALE 0x00
+#define MAX_PRESCALE 0x3FFF
+#define PRESCALE_SHIFT 2
+#define MIN_DUTY 0x0001
+#define MAX_DUTY 0xFFFF
+#define MAX_PERIOD 0xFFFF
+#define MIN_PERIOD 0x0001
+
+#define PWM_DEVICE_PER_IP 4
+#define PWM_DEVICE_OFFSET 0x10
+
+/* lock for pwm_list */
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(list_lock);
+/* list of all pwm ips available in system */
+static LIST_HEAD(pwm_list);
+
+/**
+ * struct pwm_device: struct representing pwm device/channel
+ *
+ * pwmd_id: id of pwm device
+ * pwm: pointer to parent pwm ip
+ * label: used for storing label passed in pwm_request
+ * offset: base address offset from parent pwm mmio_base
+ * busy: represents usage status of a pwm device
+ * lock: lock specific to a pwm device
+ * node: node for adding device to parent pwm's devices list
+ *
+ * Each pwm IP contains four independent pwm device/channels. Some or all of
+ * which may be present in our configuration.
+ */
+struct pwm_device {
+ unsigned pwmd_id;
+ struct pwm *pwm;
+ const char *label;
+ unsigned offset;
+ unsigned busy;
+ spinlock_t lock;
+ struct list_head node;
+};
+
+/**
+ * struct pwm: struct representing pwm ip
+ *
+ * id: id of pwm ip
+ * mmio_base: base address of pwm
+ * clk: pointer to clk structure of pwm ip
+ * clk_enabled: clock enable status
+ * pdev: pointer to pdev structure of pwm
+ * lock: lock specific to current pwm ip
+ * devices: list of devices/childrens of pwm ip
+ * node: node for adding pwm to global list of all pwm ips
+ */
+struct pwm {
+ unsigned id;
+ void __iomem *mmio_base;
+ struct clk *clk;
+ int clk_enabled;
+ struct platform_device *pdev;
+ spinlock_t lock;
+ struct list_head devices;
+ struct list_head node;
+};
+
+/*
+ * period_ns = 10^9 * (PRESCALE + 1) * PV / PWM_CLK_RATE
+ * duty_ns = 10^9 * (PRESCALE + 1) * DC / PWM_CLK_RATE
+ *
+ * PV = (PWM_CLK_RATE * period_ns)/ (10^9 * (PRESCALE + 1))
+ * DC = (PWM_CLK_RATE * duty_ns)/ (10^9 * (PRESCALE + 1))
+ */
+int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwmd, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
+{
+ u64 val, div, clk_rate;
+ unsigned long prescale = MIN_PRESCALE, pv, dc;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (!pwmd) {
+ pr_err("pwm: config - NULL pwm device pointer\n");
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ if (period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err;
+ }
+
+ /* TODO: Need to optimize this loop */
+ while (1) {
+ div = 1000000000;
+ div *= 1 + prescale;
+ clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pwmd->pwm->clk);
+ val = clk_rate * period_ns;
+ pv = div64_u64(val, div);
+ val = clk_rate * duty_ns;
+ dc = div64_u64(val, div);
+
+ if ((pv == 0) || (dc == 0)) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err;
+ }
+ if ((pv > MAX_PERIOD) || (dc > MAX_DUTY)) {
+ prescale++;
+ if (prescale > MAX_PRESCALE) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err;
+ }
+ continue;
+ }
+ if ((pv < MIN_PERIOD) || (dc < MIN_DUTY)) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err;
+ }
+ break;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * NOTE: the clock to PWM has to be enabled first
+ * before writing to the registers
+ */
+ spin_lock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+ ret = clk_enable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
+ if (ret) {
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+ goto err;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock(&pwmd->lock);
+ writel(prescale << PRESCALE_SHIFT, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base +
+ pwmd->offset + PWMCR);
+ writel(dc, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMDCR);
+ writel(pv, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMPCR);
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
+ clk_disable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+
+ return 0;
+err:
+ dev_err(&pwmd->pwm->pdev->dev, "pwm config fail\n");
+ return ret;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_config);
+
+int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwmd)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+ u32 val = 0;
+
+ if (!pwmd) {
+ pr_err("pwm: enable - NULL pwm device pointer\n");
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+ ret = clk_enable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
+ if (!ret)
+ pwmd->pwm->clk_enabled++;
+ else {
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+ goto err;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock(&pwmd->lock);
+ val = readl(pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMCR);
+ writel(val | PWM_EN_MASK, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMCR);
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+ return 0;
+err:
+ dev_err(&pwmd->pwm->pdev->dev, "pwm enable fail\n");
+ return ret;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_enable);
+
+void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwmd)
+{
+ if (!pwmd) {
+ pr_err("pwm: disable - NULL pwm device pointer\n");
+ return;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+ spin_lock(&pwmd->lock);
+ writel(0, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMCR);
+ if (pwmd->pwm->clk_enabled) {
+ clk_disable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
+ pwmd->pwm->clk_enabled--;
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_disable);
+
+struct pwm_device *pwm_request(int pwmd_id, const char *label)
+{
+ int found = 0;
+ struct pwm *pwm;
+ struct pwm_device *pwmd = NULL;
+
+ spin_lock(&list_lock);
+ list_for_each_entry(pwm, &pwm_list, node) {
+ spin_lock(&pwm->lock);
+ list_for_each_entry(pwmd, &pwm->devices, node) {
+ if (pwmd->pwmd_id == pwmd_id) {
+ found = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&pwm->lock);
+ if (found)
+ break;
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock);
+
+ if (found) {
+ spin_lock(&pwmd->lock);
+ if (pwmd->busy == 0) {
+ pwmd->busy++;
+ pwmd->label = label;
+ } else
+ pwmd = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
+ } else
+ pwmd = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
+
+ if (IS_ERR(pwmd))
+ pr_err("pwm: request fail\n");
+
+ return pwmd;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_request);
+
+void pwm_free(struct pwm_device *pwmd)
+{
+ if (!pwmd) {
+ pr_err("pwm: disable - NULL pwm device pointer\n");
+ return;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock(&pwmd->lock);
+ if (pwmd->busy) {
+ pwmd->busy--;
+ pwmd->label = NULL;
+ } else {
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
+ dev_warn(&pwmd->pwm->pdev->dev, "pwm device already freed\n");
+ return;
+ }
+
+ spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_free);
+
+/* creates and add pwmd device to parent pwm's devices list */
+static int add_pwm_device(unsigned int pwmd_id, struct pwm *pwm)
+{
+ struct pwm_device *pwmd;
+
+ pwmd = kzalloc(sizeof(*pwmd), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pwmd)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ pwmd->pwm = pwm;
+ pwmd->busy = 0;
+ pwmd->pwmd_id = pwmd_id + pwm->id * PWM_DEVICE_PER_IP;
+ pwmd->offset = pwmd_id * PWM_DEVICE_OFFSET;
+ spin_lock_init(&pwmd->lock);
+
+ spin_lock(&pwm->lock);
+ list_add_tail(&pwmd->node, &pwm->devices);
+ spin_unlock(&pwm->lock);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* removes all pwmd devices from parent pwm's devices list */
+static void remove_pwm_devices(struct pwm *pwm)
+{
+ struct pwm_device *pwmd;
+
+ spin_lock(&pwm->lock);
+ list_for_each_entry(pwmd, &pwm->devices, node) {
+ list_del(&pwmd->node);
+ kfree(pwmd);
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&pwm->lock);
+}
+
+static int __devinit st_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct pwm *pwm = NULL;
+ struct resource *res;
+ int ret = 0, pwmd_id = 0;
+
+ pwm = kzalloc(sizeof(*pwm), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pwm) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "failed to allocate memory\n");
+ goto err;
+ }
+
+ pwm->clk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
+ if (IS_ERR(pwm->clk)) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(pwm->clk);
+ dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Error getting clock\n");
+ goto err_free;
+ }
+
+ res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
+ if (!res) {
+ ret = -ENODEV;
+ dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "no memory resource defined\n");
+ goto err_free_clk;
+ }
+
+ if (!request_mem_region(res->start, resource_size(res), pdev->name)) {
+ ret = -EBUSY;
+ dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "failed to request memory resource\n");
+ goto err_free_clk;
+ }
+
+ pwm->mmio_base = ioremap(res->start, resource_size(res));
+ if (!pwm->mmio_base) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "failed to ioremap\n");
+ goto err_free_mem;
+ }
+
+ /* initialize pwm structure */
+ pwm->clk_enabled = 0;
+ pwm->pdev = pdev;
+ /* if pdev->id is -1, only one pwm ip is present */
+ if (pdev->id == -1)
+ pwm->id = 0;
+ else
+ pwm->id = pdev->id;
+
+ spin_lock_init(&pwm->lock);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pwm->devices);
+ platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pwm);
+
+ /* add pwm to pwm list */
+ spin_lock(&list_lock);
+ list_add_tail(&pwm->node, &pwm_list);
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock);
+
+ /* add pwm devices */
+ for (pwmd_id = 0; pwmd_id < PWM_DEVICE_PER_IP; pwmd_id++) {
+ ret = add_pwm_device(pwmd_id, pwm);
+ if (!ret)
+ continue;
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Add device fail for pwm device id: %d\n",
+ pwmd_id);
+ }
+
+ if (list_empty(&pwm->node))
+ goto err_remove_pwm;
+
+ dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Initialization successful\n");
+ return 0;
+
+err_remove_pwm:
+ spin_lock(&list_lock);
+ list_del(&pwm->node);
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock);
+
+ platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
+ iounmap(pwm->mmio_base);
+err_free_mem:
+ release_mem_region(res->start, resource_size(res));
+err_free_clk:
+ clk_put(pwm->clk);
+err_free:
+ kfree(pwm);
+err:
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Initialization Fail. Error: %d\n", ret);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int __devexit st_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct pwm *pwm;
+ struct resource *res;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ pwm = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+ if (pwm == NULL) {
+ ret = -ENODEV;
+ dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Remove: get_drvdata fail\n");
+ goto err;
+ }
+ platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
+
+ /* remove pwm devices */
+ remove_pwm_devices(pwm);
+
+ /* remove pwm from pwm_list */
+ spin_lock(&list_lock);
+ list_del(&pwm->node);
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock);
+
+ iounmap(pwm->mmio_base);
+ res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
+ if (!res) {
+ ret = -ENODEV;
+ dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Remove: get_resource fail\n");
+ goto err;
+ }
+ release_mem_region(res->start, resource_size(res));
+
+ if (pwm->clk_enabled)
+ clk_disable(pwm->clk);
+ clk_put(pwm->clk);
+
+ kfree(pwm);
+ return 0;
+
+err:
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Remove: Fail - %d\n", ret);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static struct platform_driver st_pwm_driver = {
+ .driver = {
+ .name = "st_pwm",
+ .bus = &platform_bus_type,
+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ },
+ .probe = st_pwm_probe,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(st_pwm_remove)
+};
+
+static int __init st_pwm_init(void)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ ret = platform_driver_register(&st_pwm_driver);
+ if (ret)
+ pr_err("failed to register st_pwm_driver\n");
+
+ return ret;
+}
+module_init(st_pwm_init);
+
+static void __exit st_pwm_exit(void)
+{
+ platform_driver_unregister(&st_pwm_driver);
+}
+module_exit(st_pwm_exit);
+
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ST PWM Driver");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
--
1.7.2.2
Reviewed-by: Stanley Miao <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/include/mach/generic.h | 1 +
arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320_evb.c | 1 +
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/include/mach/generic.h b/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/include/mach/generic.h
index 8cc3a73..a88e359 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/include/mach/generic.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/include/mach/generic.h
@@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ void __init spear310_init(struct pmx_mode *pmx_mode, struct pmx_dev **pmx_devs,
#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_SPEAR320
/* Add spear320 machine device structure declarations here */
extern struct platform_device spear320_plgpio_device;
+extern struct platform_device spear320_pwm_device;
/* pad mux modes */
extern struct pmx_mode spear320_auto_net_smii_mode;
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320.c b/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320.c
index 575493a..d84e986 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320.c
@@ -548,6 +548,22 @@ struct platform_device spear320_plgpio_device = {
.resource = plgpio_resources,
};
+/* pwm device registeration */
+static struct resource pwm_resources[] = {
+ {
+ .start = SPEAR320_PWM_BASE,
+ .end = SPEAR320_PWM_BASE + SZ_4K - 1,
+ .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
+ },
+};
+
+struct platform_device spear320_pwm_device = {
+ .name = "st_pwm",
+ .id = -1,
+ .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pwm_resources),
+ .resource = pwm_resources,
+};
+
/* spear320 routines */
void __init spear320_init(struct pmx_mode *pmx_mode, struct pmx_dev **pmx_devs,
u8 pmx_dev_count)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320_evb.c b/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320_evb.c
index 4d747db..6190660 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320_evb.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-spear3xx/spear320_evb.c
@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ static struct platform_device *plat_devs[] __initdata = {
/* spear320 specific devices */
&spear320_plgpio_device,
+ &spear320_pwm_device,
};
static void __init spear320_evb_init(void)
--
1.7.2.2
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig
index 07e9613..bc29eaf 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig
@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ CONFIG_SPEAR_PLGPIO=y
# CONFIG_HWMON is not set
# CONFIG_HID_SUPPORT is not set
# CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT is not set
+CONFIG_PWMLIB=y
+CONFIG_ST_PWM=y
CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y
CONFIG_EXT2_FS_XATTR=y
CONFIG_EXT2_FS_SECURITY=y
--
1.7.2.2
On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:21:51 +0530
Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch adds support for ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator. This is
> currently used by ST's SPEAr platform and tested on the same.
>
> This patch also adds drivers/pwm directory as suggested by Arnd Bergmann in
> following discussion:
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/118651
>
>
> ...
>
> +/**
> + * struct pwm_device: struct representing pwm device/channel
> + *
> + * pwmd_id: id of pwm device
> + * pwm: pointer to parent pwm ip
> + * label: used for storing label passed in pwm_request
> + * offset: base address offset from parent pwm mmio_base
> + * busy: represents usage status of a pwm device
> + * lock: lock specific to a pwm device
More specificity here would be helpful. Precisely which data does the
lock protect?
> + * node: node for adding device to parent pwm's devices list
> + *
> + * Each pwm IP contains four independent pwm device/channels. Some or all of
> + * which may be present in our configuration.
> + */
> +struct pwm_device {
> + unsigned pwmd_id;
> + struct pwm *pwm;
> + const char *label;
> + unsigned offset;
> + unsigned busy;
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + struct list_head node;
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * struct pwm: struct representing pwm ip
> + *
> + * id: id of pwm ip
> + * mmio_base: base address of pwm
> + * clk: pointer to clk structure of pwm ip
> + * clk_enabled: clock enable status
> + * pdev: pointer to pdev structure of pwm
> + * lock: lock specific to current pwm ip
Ditto.
> + * devices: list of devices/childrens of pwm ip
> + * node: node for adding pwm to global list of all pwm ips
> + */
> +struct pwm {
> + unsigned id;
> + void __iomem *mmio_base;
> + struct clk *clk;
> + int clk_enabled;
> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + struct list_head devices;
> + struct list_head node;
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * period_ns = 10^9 * (PRESCALE + 1) * PV / PWM_CLK_RATE
> + * duty_ns = 10^9 * (PRESCALE + 1) * DC / PWM_CLK_RATE
> + *
> + * PV = (PWM_CLK_RATE * period_ns)/ (10^9 * (PRESCALE + 1))
> + * DC = (PWM_CLK_RATE * duty_ns)/ (10^9 * (PRESCALE + 1))
> + */
> +int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwmd, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> +{
> + u64 val, div, clk_rate;
> + unsigned long prescale = MIN_PRESCALE, pv, dc;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (!pwmd) {
> + pr_err("pwm: config - NULL pwm device pointer\n");
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + if (period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + /* TODO: Need to optimize this loop */
> + while (1) {
> + div = 1000000000;
> + div *= 1 + prescale;
> + clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pwmd->pwm->clk);
> + val = clk_rate * period_ns;
> + pv = div64_u64(val, div);
> + val = clk_rate * duty_ns;
> + dc = div64_u64(val, div);
> +
> + if ((pv == 0) || (dc == 0)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto err;
> + }
> + if ((pv > MAX_PERIOD) || (dc > MAX_DUTY)) {
> + prescale++;
> + if (prescale > MAX_PRESCALE) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto err;
> + }
> + continue;
> + }
> + if ((pv < MIN_PERIOD) || (dc < MIN_DUTY)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto err;
> + }
> + break;
> + }
gee, is this some sort of puzzle? So human-readable description of
what this code is doing would be an improvement.
> + /*
> + * NOTE: the clock to PWM has to be enabled first
> + * before writing to the registers
> + */
> + spin_lock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
> + ret = clk_enable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
> + if (ret) {
> + spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + spin_lock(&pwmd->lock);
> + writel(prescale << PRESCALE_SHIFT, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base +
> + pwmd->offset + PWMCR);
> + writel(dc, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMDCR);
> + writel(pv, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMPCR);
> + spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
> + clk_disable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
> + spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
The nesting rules for these two locks seems sensible and obvious, but I
guess documenting the rule wouldn't hurt.
> + return 0;
> +err:
> + dev_err(&pwmd->pwm->pdev->dev, "pwm config fail\n");
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_config);
> +
>
> ...
>
> +static int __devinit st_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
And here things get rather odd.
Most of this file is a generic, non-device specific PWM layer, exported
to other modules. But then we get into driver bits which are specific
to one paritular type of device. Confused - this is like putting the
e100 driver inside net/ipv4/tcp.c?
On 06/07/2011 06:03 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 14:21:51 +0530
> Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> + * lock: lock specific to a pwm device
>
> More specificity here would be helpful. Precisely which data does the
> lock protect?
>
>> + * lock: lock specific to current pwm ip
>
> Ditto.
>
Ok.
>> +int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwmd, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>> +{
>> + u64 val, div, clk_rate;
>> + unsigned long prescale = MIN_PRESCALE, pv, dc;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!pwmd) {
>> + pr_err("pwm: config - NULL pwm device pointer\n");
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (period_ns == 0 || duty_ns > period_ns) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* TODO: Need to optimize this loop */
>> + while (1) {
>> + div = 1000000000;
>> + div *= 1 + prescale;
>> + clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pwmd->pwm->clk);
>> + val = clk_rate * period_ns;
>> + pv = div64_u64(val, div);
>> + val = clk_rate * duty_ns;
>> + dc = div64_u64(val, div);
>> +
>> + if ((pv == 0) || (dc == 0)) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> + if ((pv > MAX_PERIOD) || (dc > MAX_DUTY)) {
>> + prescale++;
>> + if (prescale > MAX_PRESCALE) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + if ((pv < MIN_PERIOD) || (dc < MIN_DUTY)) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> + break;
>> + }
>
> gee, is this some sort of puzzle? So human-readable description of
> what this code is doing would be an improvement.
>
Sure. Will add that.
>> + spin_lock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
>> + ret = clk_enable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&pwmd->lock);
>> + writel(prescale << PRESCALE_SHIFT, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base +
>> + pwmd->offset + PWMCR);
>> + writel(dc, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMDCR);
>> + writel(pv, pwmd->pwm->mmio_base + pwmd->offset + PWMPCR);
>> + spin_unlock(&pwmd->lock);
>> + clk_disable(pwmd->pwm->clk);
>> + spin_unlock(&pwmd->pwm->lock);
>
> The nesting rules for these two locks seems sensible and obvious, but I
> guess documenting the rule wouldn't hurt.
>
Ok.
>> + return 0;
>> +err:
>> + dev_err(&pwmd->pwm->pdev->dev, "pwm config fail\n");
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pwm_config);
>> +
>>
>> ...
>>
>> +static int __devinit st_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> And here things get rather odd.
>
> Most of this file is a generic, non-device specific PWM layer, exported
> to other modules. But then we get into driver bits which are specific
> to one paritular type of device. Confused - this is like putting the
> e100 driver inside net/ipv4/tcp.c?
>
Sorry but i couldn't get this one completely. :(
Driver is specific to pwm peripheral by ST. This driver can be used for
SPEAr or may be other SoC or Devices, and is not at all dependent on SPEAr.
--
viresh
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 05:55:25 viresh kumar wrote:
> >> +static int __devinit st_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > And here things get rather odd.
> >
> > Most of this file is a generic, non-device specific PWM layer, exported
> > to other modules. But then we get into driver bits which are specific
> > to one paritular type of device. Confused - this is like putting the
> > e100 driver inside net/ipv4/tcp.c?
> >
>
> Sorry but i couldn't get this one completely. :(
> Driver is specific to pwm peripheral by ST. This driver can be used for
> SPEAr or may be other SoC or Devices, and is not at all dependent on SPEAr.
It was my suggestion to start drivers/pwm/ with this driver. We currently
have a number of pwm drivers spread over the entire tree, all using slight
the same interface header. They all look like this one, and are each used
on one SOC, so you have to choose at compile-time which one to use.
There are two problems with this of course:
1. the drivers that export the same interface should be in one directory
2. there should be a common abstraction layer to avoid duplicate code and
enable building a kernel with multiple PWM drivers builtin.
Moving this driver to drivers/pwm is the first step to address the
problem 1, we will move the other drivers in the 3.1 or 3.2 timeframe.
There is independent by Sascha Hauer to work on the abstraction layer
for all the drivers. Once that is in, we will change the individual drivers
in drivers/pwm accordingly.
Arnd
On 06/07/2011 12:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 05:55:25 viresh kumar wrote:
>>>> +static int __devinit st_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>> And here things get rather odd.
>>>
>>> Most of this file is a generic, non-device specific PWM layer, exported
>>> to other modules. But then we get into driver bits which are specific
>>> to one paritular type of device. Confused - this is like putting the
>>> e100 driver inside net/ipv4/tcp.c?
>>>
>>
>> Sorry but i couldn't get this one completely. :(
>> Driver is specific to pwm peripheral by ST. This driver can be used for
>> SPEAr or may be other SoC or Devices, and is not at all dependent on SPEAr.
>
>
Now i get the question correctly. :)
> It was my suggestion to start drivers/pwm/ with this driver. We currently
> have a number of pwm drivers spread over the entire tree, all using slight
> the same interface header. They all look like this one, and are each used
> on one SOC, so you have to choose at compile-time which one to use.
>
> There are two problems with this of course:
> 1. the drivers that export the same interface should be in one directory
> 2. there should be a common abstraction layer to avoid duplicate code and
> enable building a kernel with multiple PWM drivers builtin.
>
> Moving this driver to drivers/pwm is the first step to address the
> problem 1, we will move the other drivers in the 3.1 or 3.2 timeframe.
>
> There is independent by Sascha Hauer to work on the abstraction layer
> for all the drivers. Once that is in, we will change the individual drivers
> in drivers/pwm accordingly.
>
Above was exactly the reason why i didn't separated framework from device
specific part. As soon as framework is pushed, i will update my driver to
work with it.
--
viresh
On 05/31/2011 02:21 PM, Viresh KUMAR wrote:
> This patchset adds drivers/pwm directory as suggested by Arnd Bergmann in
> following discussion:
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/118651
>
> and also adds support for ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator. This is
> currently used by ST's SPEAr platform and tested on the same.
>
> Changes since V1:
> - Moved driver to drivers/pwm/ directory from drivers/misc
> - arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig updated accordingly.
>
> Changes since earlier patchset:
> - Moved driver to drivers/misc/ directory.
>
> It was earlier reviewed as part of following patchset:
> "[PATCH V6 00/17] Adding devices support for all spear machines"
>
> Viresh Kumar (3):
> drivers/pwm st_pwm: Add support for ST's Pulse Width Modulator
> SPEAr3xx: Add machine support for ST's PWM IP
> SPEAr3xx: Update defconfig for ST's PWM
>
Hi Arnd,
Will you push this patchset through your tree or somebody else will do?
--
viresh
On Monday 27 June 2011, viresh kumar wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 02:21 PM, Viresh KUMAR wrote:
> > This patchset adds drivers/pwm directory as suggested by Arnd Bergmann in
> > following discussion:
> >
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/118651
> >
> > and also adds support for ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator. This is
> > currently used by ST's SPEAr platform and tested on the same.
> >
> > Changes since V1:
> > - Moved driver to drivers/pwm/ directory from drivers/misc
> > - arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig updated accordingly.
> >
> > Changes since earlier patchset:
> > - Moved driver to drivers/misc/ directory.
> >
> > It was earlier reviewed as part of following patchset:
> > "[PATCH V6 00/17] Adding devices support for all spear machines"
> >
> > Viresh Kumar (3):
> > drivers/pwm st_pwm: Add support for ST's Pulse Width Modulator
> > SPEAr3xx: Add machine support for ST's PWM IP
> > SPEAr3xx: Update defconfig for ST's PWM
>
> Will you push this patchset through your tree or somebody else will do?
Good question. If Sascha is able to come up with the patch to introduce
the generic layer, I think it would be good to have it go though him.
Otherwise I guess I can carry it, but I'd start a new tree for
drivers/{misc,char} then and put it in there, along with patches to
move the other pwm drivers.
Arnd
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:26:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 27 June 2011, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On 05/31/2011 02:21 PM, Viresh KUMAR wrote:
> > > This patchset adds drivers/pwm directory as suggested by Arnd Bergmann in
> > > following discussion:
> > >
> > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/118651
> > >
> > > and also adds support for ST Microelectronics Pulse Width Modulator. This is
> > > currently used by ST's SPEAr platform and tested on the same.
> > >
> > > Changes since V1:
> > > - Moved driver to drivers/pwm/ directory from drivers/misc
> > > - arch/arm/configs/spear3xx_defconfig updated accordingly.
> > >
> > > Changes since earlier patchset:
> > > - Moved driver to drivers/misc/ directory.
> > >
> > > It was earlier reviewed as part of following patchset:
> > > "[PATCH V6 00/17] Adding devices support for all spear machines"
> > >
> > > Viresh Kumar (3):
> > > drivers/pwm st_pwm: Add support for ST's Pulse Width Modulator
> > > SPEAr3xx: Add machine support for ST's PWM IP
> > > SPEAr3xx: Update defconfig for ST's PWM
> >
> > Will you push this patchset through your tree or somebody else will do?
>
> Good question. If Sascha is able to come up with the patch to introduce
> the generic layer, I think it would be good to have it go though him.
Just posted a rebased and documented series again. Let's see what
happens. The time seems good to finally get this into the kernel.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
On Tuesday 28 June 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >
> > Good question. If Sascha is able to come up with the patch to introduce
> > the generic layer, I think it would be good to have it go though him.
>
> Just posted a rebased and documented series again. Let's see what
> happens. The time seems good to finally get this into the kernel.
I'd say let's go forward with your framework. The two patches currently
because they both add Makefile/Kconfig files in drivers/pwm.
Maybe you can add Viresh's patch to your series, and wait for him
to follow up with a patch to convert it?
I've tried to blindly do the conversion myself, but got stuck with the
definition of the platform device that has multiple pwms in it.
I wonder if it would be better to change the st-pwm platform
interface to define one platform_device for each of them.
Arnd
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 05:13:15PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 June 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > >
> > > Good question. If Sascha is able to come up with the patch to introduce
> > > the generic layer, I think it would be good to have it go though him.
> >
> > Just posted a rebased and documented series again. Let's see what
> > happens. The time seems good to finally get this into the kernel.
>
> I'd say let's go forward with your framework. The two patches currently
> because they both add Makefile/Kconfig files in drivers/pwm.
>
> Maybe you can add Viresh's patch to your series, and wait for him
> to follow up with a patch to convert it?
>
> I've tried to blindly do the conversion myself, but got stuck with the
> definition of the platform device that has multiple pwms in it.
> I wonder if it would be better to change the st-pwm platform
> interface to define one platform_device for each of them.
Definitely. From a quick look at the driver it seems the pwms all have
a seperate register space.
I can add Viresh's patch to my series once we agree on the base patch.
In the meantime maybe Viresh starts converting it ;)
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Sascha Hauer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 05:13:15PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 28 June 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>
> Definitely. From a quick look at the driver it seems the pwms all have
> a seperate register space.
>
Actually, latest version of pwm (not present in current patch) has
common registers to all pwm devices.
> I can add Viresh's patch to my series once we agree on the base patch.
> In the meantime maybe Viresh starts converting it ;)
I will not be able to do this now due to some other activities i am
doing currently. :(
May be you can go ahead with your patchset and i will update mine and
send it back as soon as i get some time.
--
viresh