LinuxLists.cc - [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:54 PM Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The MAX7313 chip is fully compatible with the PCA9535 on its basic
> functions but can also manage the intensity on each of its ports with
> PWM. Each output is independent and may be tuned with 16 values (4
> bits per output). The period is always 32kHz, only the duty-cycle may
> be changed. One can use any output as GPIO or PWM.

Besides the messing with parameter types (int vs. bool) it should be
rebased on top of Bartosz's tree.

Also, it might be that we can instantiate a kind of device (MFD?) that
will share same regmap between two and have naturally different
drivers for GPIO and PWM.

Side note: I still think this should be a function of the pin when
driver will be converted to pin control. Now this change delays the
conversion and better approach. But as I said before, if GPIO
maintainers consider this good enough to go like this, I won't object.

Some background. It's known that some pin control devices may have PWM
function (limited, like blinking led or so, or full) and it would be
nice to have a pin mux option which enables PWM on a requested pin. Or
PWM tries to enable proper pin muxing (this sounds even better in
order of sharing same API from pin control, like "pin is available for
GPIO").

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2020-05-03 19:50:56

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

Hello Andy, hello Miquel,

On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 10:20:23PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:54 PM Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The MAX7313 chip is fully compatible with the PCA9535 on its basic
> > functions but can also manage the intensity on each of its ports with
> > PWM. Each output is independent and may be tuned with 16 values (4
> > bits per output). The period is always 32kHz, only the duty-cycle may
> > be changed. One can use any output as GPIO or PWM.
>
> Besides the messing with parameter types (int vs. bool) it should be
> rebased on top of Bartosz's tree.
>
> Also, it might be that we can instantiate a kind of device (MFD?) that
> will share same regmap between two and have naturally different
> drivers for GPIO and PWM.
>
> Side note: I still think this should be a function of the pin when
> driver will be converted to pin control. Now this change delays the
> conversion and better approach. But as I said before, if GPIO
> maintainers consider this good enough to go like this, I won't object.
>
> Some background. It's known that some pin control devices may have PWM
> function (limited, like blinking led or so, or full) and it would be
> nice to have a pin mux option which enables PWM on a requested pin. Or
> PWM tries to enable proper pin muxing (this sounds even better in
> order of sharing same API from pin control, like "pin is available for
> GPIO").

There is one thing I see as a pre-condition to the abstraction of
pin-controller + GPIO + PWM: If I configure the PWM with certain
parameters while the pin is still configured as GPIO there must be no
visible effect on the pin. The setting must then be active when the pin
is changed to PWM mode. (And vice versa: The GPIO setting must not
influence the PWM output ...) I didn't check the hardware manual (or the
patch), but if this needs caching of pwm and gpio parameters I would
take that as a strong hint that the abstraction is wrong.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

2020-06-29 19:12:41

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

Hello Uwe, Thierry,

Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 3 May 2020
12:54:53 +0200:

> The MAX7313 chip is fully compatible with the PCA9535 on its basic
> functions but can also manage the intensity on each of its ports with
> PWM. Each output is independent and may be tuned with 16 values (4
> bits per output). The period is always 32kHz, only the duty-cycle may
> be changed. One can use any output as GPIO or PWM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> ---

Can I have a status on this patch please?

If it was forgotten, I would be good to have it queued now, otherwise,
may I know the reason?

Thanks!
Miquèl

>
> Changes in v6:
> * Rebased on top of v5.7-rc3.
> * Added a call to max7313_pwm_remove() in pca953x_remove() to
> eventually run pwmchip_remove().
>
> Changes in v5:
> * Enhanced the derivation of the intensity from the duty_cycle and the
> other way around by creating two helpers. These helpers use a more
> precise fixed point calculation logic than before (multiply then
> divide instead of the opposite).
> * The above change also takes into account that the period cannot be
> changed, so it doest not matter the given period (as long as it is
> considered as valid), the actual period used for it will be the one
> of the IP (not the one given by the user).
> * Simplified #define's as suggested by Andy.
> * Simplified the check for the IP being compatible with these PWM bits
> as proposed by Andy, also moved into a helper.
> * Added missing error checks on regmap_read(). As the main function
> using it returns void, I decided to print a warning and return a
> duty_cycle value of 0.
> * Removed a redundant condition.
> * Simplified the access to the device structure from the PWM chip
> structure.
> * Used __assign_bit() instead of the set_bit()/clear_bit() couple.
> * I did not split the driver as I think it is too much work for me
> right now.
>
> Changes in v4:
> * Fix wrong comment about register value.
> * Rewrite ->set_state() to make it more readable, include the fact
> that the phase may blink and to limit the number of blink changes
> when possible ("lazy switching" as discussed with Uwe).
> * Prevent using managed memory when not relevant.
> * Add a definition to the master intensity shift.
> * Rename all struct pwm_device to pwm and all struct pwm_chip as
> chip. Then, struct pca953x_chip are called pca_chip instead of chip
> and struct max7313_pwm are called max_pwm intead of pwm.
> * Enhance the comment about glitch-free hardware.
> * Add a plain error check at the ->pwm_probe() return location.
> * Rename duty_cycle to intensity when relevant.
> * Do not initialize the PWM in ->request(). Also do not change the
> state in ->free().
> * New way to count enabled/disabled PWM (with a bitmap). Disable the
> oscillator only when 0 PWM are in use, enable it when there is
> one. Also always set the pin to output state otherwise the default
> might be input.
> * Force state->enable to be true and drop all the boilerplate around
> enable and .duty_cycle.
>
> Changes in v3:
> * Added two error messages in ->request().
> * Protected the PWM count agains races with an additional mutex.
> * Dropped an useless check on the period value in ->apply().
> * Forced the .period to be constant.
> * Checked state->polarity when needed.
> * Used DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL for computing the duty_cycle.
> * Implemented ->get_state().
> * Added a comment to explain that the GPIO functionality is not harmed
> by the global intensity setting.
>
> Changes in v2:
> * Removed the hardcoding of PWM_CHANNELS, changed the code to use the
> number of GPIO lines which is programatically known.
> * Used per pwm_device chip data to store the GPIO descriptors instead
> of having a static array of GPIO descriptors in the private PWM
> structure. It also enhanced the readability.
> * Rename an offset variable: s/off/shift/.
> * The default PWM state is now static low instead of input.
> * Used the GPIO as regular consumer thanks to the stored GPIO
> descriptors to "make it more idiomatic" (requested by Thierry).
> * Used gpiochip_request_own_desc() instead of
> gpio_to_desc()/gpiod_request(). This prevented the build issue and
> an additional dependency that would have requested a DEPENDS ON line
> in Kconfig.
> * Enhanced the return line of max7313_pwm_probe().
>
> drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 413 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 411 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> index 5638b4e5355f..ba5e1af0d281 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> @@ -12,18 +12,22 @@
> #include <linux/bitmap.h>
> #include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio/machine.h>
> #include <linux/i2c.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> #include <linux/platform_data/pca953x.h>
> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> #include <linux/regmap.h>
> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
>
> #include <asm/unaligned.h>
>
> +#include "gpiolib.h"
> +
> #define PCA953X_INPUT 0x00
> #define PCA953X_OUTPUT 0x01
> #define PCA953X_INVERT 0x02
> @@ -63,11 +67,18 @@
>
> #define PCA_INT BIT(8)
> #define PCA_PCAL BIT(9)
> +#define MAX_PWM BIT(10)
> #define PCA_LATCH_INT (PCA_PCAL | PCA_INT)
> #define PCA953X_TYPE BIT(12)
> #define PCA957X_TYPE BIT(13)
> #define PCA_TYPE_MASK GENMASK(15, 12)
>
> +#define MAX7313_MASTER 0x0E
> +#define MAX7313_CONFIGURATION 0x0F
> +#define MAX7313_INTENSITY 0x10
> +
> +#define MAX7313_GLOB_INTENSITY BIT(2)
> +
> #define PCA_CHIP_TYPE(x) ((x) & PCA_TYPE_MASK)
>
> static const struct i2c_device_id pca953x_id[] = {
> @@ -93,7 +104,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id pca953x_id[] = {
>
> { "max7310", 8 | PCA953X_TYPE, },
> { "max7312", 16 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT, },
> - { "max7313", 16 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT, },
> + { "max7313", 16 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT | MAX_PWM, },
> { "max7315", 8 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT, },
> { "max7318", 16 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT, },
> { "pca6107", 8 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT, },
> @@ -119,6 +130,15 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, pca953x_acpi_ids);
>
> #define NBANK(chip) DIV_ROUND_UP(chip->gpio_chip.ngpio, BANK_SZ)
>
> +#define PWM_MAX_COUNT 16
> +#define PWM_PER_REG 2
> +#define PWM_BITS_PER_REG 4
> +#define PWM_MASTER_INTENSITY_SHIFT 4
> +#define PWM_INTENSITY_MASK GENMASK(3, 0)
> +
> +#define PWM_PERIOD_NS 31250
> +#define PWM_DC_STATES 16
> +
> struct pca953x_reg_config {
> int direction;
> int output;
> @@ -140,6 +160,20 @@ static const struct pca953x_reg_config pca957x_regs = {
> .invert = PCA957X_INVRT,
> };
>
> +struct max7313_pwm_data {
> + struct gpio_desc *desc;
> +};
> +
> +struct max7313_pwm {
> + struct pwm_chip chip;
> + /*
> + * Protect races when counting active PWMs for enabling or disabling
> + * the internal oscillator.
> + */
> + struct mutex count_lock;
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(active_pwm, PWM_MAX_COUNT);
> +};
> +
> struct pca953x_chip {
> unsigned gpio_start;
> struct mutex i2c_lock;
> @@ -162,6 +196,8 @@ struct pca953x_chip {
> struct regulator *regulator;
>
> const struct pca953x_reg_config *regs;
> +
> + struct max7313_pwm pwm;
> };
>
> static int pca953x_bank_shift(struct pca953x_chip *chip)
> @@ -239,11 +275,26 @@ static bool pca953x_check_register(struct pca953x_chip *chip, unsigned int reg,
> return true;
> }
>
> +static bool max7313_pwm_reg_is_accessible(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> +{
> + struct pca953x_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + unsigned int bank_sz = chip->driver_data & PCA_GPIO_MASK;
> +
> + if (reg >= MAX7313_MASTER && reg < (MAX7313_INTENSITY + bank_sz))
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static bool pca953x_readable_register(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> {
> struct pca953x_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> u32 bank;
>
> + if ((chip->driver_data & MAX_PWM) &&
> + max7313_pwm_reg_is_accessible(dev, reg))
> + return true;
> +
> if (PCA_CHIP_TYPE(chip->driver_data) == PCA953X_TYPE) {
> bank = PCA953x_BANK_INPUT | PCA953x_BANK_OUTPUT |
> PCA953x_BANK_POLARITY | PCA953x_BANK_CONFIG;
> @@ -267,6 +318,10 @@ static bool pca953x_writeable_register(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> struct pca953x_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> u32 bank;
>
> + if ((chip->driver_data & MAX_PWM) &&
> + max7313_pwm_reg_is_accessible(dev, reg))
> + return true;
> +
> if (PCA_CHIP_TYPE(chip->driver_data) == PCA953X_TYPE) {
> bank = PCA953x_BANK_OUTPUT | PCA953x_BANK_POLARITY |
> PCA953x_BANK_CONFIG;
> @@ -854,6 +909,346 @@ static int device_pca957x_init(struct pca953x_chip *chip, u32 invert)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Max7313 PWM specific methods
> + *
> + * Limitations:
> + * - Does not support a disabled state
> + * - Period fixed to 31.25ms
> + * - Only supports normal polarity
> + * - Some glitches cannot be prevented
> + */
> +
> +static struct max7313_pwm *to_max7313_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> +{
> + return container_of(chip, struct max7313_pwm, chip);
> +}
> +
> +static struct pca953x_chip *to_pca953x(struct max7313_pwm *chip)
> +{
> + return container_of(chip, struct pca953x_chip, pwm);
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned int max7313_pwm_intensity_to_duty(u8 intensity)
> +{
> + unsigned long long value = intensity;
> +
> + return DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(value * PWM_PERIOD_NS, PWM_DC_STATES);
> +}
> +
> +static u8 max7313_pwm_duty_to_intensity(unsigned int duty)
> +{
> + unsigned long long value = duty;
> +
> + return DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(value * PWM_DC_STATES, PWM_PERIOD_NS);
> +}
> +
> +static u8 max7313_pwm_get_intensity(struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip,
> + unsigned int idx)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pca_chip->client->dev;
> + unsigned int reg, shift, val, output;
> + u8 intensity;
> + bool phase;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Retrieve the intensity */
> + reg = MAX7313_INTENSITY + (idx / PWM_PER_REG);
> + shift = (idx % PWM_PER_REG) ? PWM_BITS_PER_REG : 0;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + ret = regmap_read(pca_chip->regmap, reg, &val);
> + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Cannot retrieve PWM intensity (%d)\n", ret);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + val >>= shift;
> + val &= PWM_INTENSITY_MASK;
> +
> + /* Retrieve the phase */
> + reg = pca953x_recalc_addr(pca_chip, pca_chip->regs->output, idx, 0, 0);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + ret = regmap_read(pca_chip->regmap, reg, &output);
> + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Cannot retrieve PWM phase (%d)\n", ret);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + phase = output & BIT(idx % BANK_SZ);
> +
> + /*
> + * Register values in the [0;15] range mean a value in the [1/16;16/16]
> + * range if the phase is set, a [15/16;0/16] range otherwise.
> + */
> + if (phase)
> + intensity = val + 1;
> + else
> + intensity = PWM_INTENSITY_MASK - val;
> +
> + return intensity;
> +}
> +
> +static int max7313_pwm_set_intensity(struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip,
> + unsigned int idx, u8 intensity)
> +{
> + unsigned int reg, shift;
> + u8 val, mask;
> + int ret;
> +
> + reg = MAX7313_INTENSITY + (idx / PWM_PER_REG);
> + shift = (idx % PWM_PER_REG) ? PWM_BITS_PER_REG : 0;
> +
> + mask = PWM_INTENSITY_MASK << shift;
> + val = (intensity & PWM_INTENSITY_MASK) << shift;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + ret = regmap_write_bits(pca_chip->regmap, reg, mask, val);
> + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * For a given PWM channel, when the blink phase 0 bit is set, the intensity
> + * range is only [1/16;16/16]. With this range, a static low output is
> + * physically not possible. When the blink phase 0 bit is cleared, the intensity
> + * range is [15/16;0/16] which then allows a static low output but not a static
> + * high output.
> + *
> + * In this driver we choose to switch the blink phase only when mandatory
> + * because there is no way to atomically flip the register *and* change the PWM
> + * value at the same time so, in this case, it will produce a small glitch.
> + */
> +static int max7313_pwm_set_state(struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip,
> + struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + unsigned int intensity)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm_data *data = pwm_get_chip_data(pwm);
> + struct gpio_desc *desc = data->desc;
> + unsigned int idx = pwm->hwpwm, reg, output;
> + bool phase;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Retrieve the phase */
> + reg = pca953x_recalc_addr(pca_chip, pca_chip->regs->output, idx, 0, 0);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + ret = regmap_read(pca_chip->regmap, reg, &output);
> + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + phase = output & BIT(idx % BANK_SZ);
> +
> + /* Need to blink the phase */
> + if ((phase && !intensity) || (!phase && intensity == PWM_DC_STATES)) {
> + phase = !phase;
> + ret = gpiod_direction_output(desc, phase);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + } else {
> + /* Ensure the pin is in output state (default might be input) */
> + ret = gpiod_direction_output(desc, phase);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (phase)
> + intensity = intensity - 1;
> + else
> + intensity = PWM_INTENSITY_MASK - intensity;
> +
> + return max7313_pwm_set_intensity(pca_chip, idx, intensity);
> +}
> +
> +static int max7313_pwm_set_master_intensity(struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip,
> + u8 intensity)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + intensity &= PWM_INTENSITY_MASK;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + ret = regmap_write_bits(pca_chip->regmap, MAX7313_MASTER,
> + PWM_INTENSITY_MASK << PWM_MASTER_INTENSITY_SHIFT,
> + intensity << PWM_MASTER_INTENSITY_SHIFT);
> + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int max7313_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> + struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm *max_pwm = to_max7313_pwm(chip);
> + struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip = to_pca953x(max_pwm);
> + struct device *dev = &pca_chip->client->dev;
> + struct max7313_pwm_data *data;
> + struct gpio_desc *desc;
> +
> + desc = gpiochip_request_own_desc(&pca_chip->gpio_chip, pwm->hwpwm,
> + "max7313-pwm", GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH, 0);
> + if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "pin already in use (probably as GPIO): %ld\n",
> + PTR_ERR(desc));
> + return PTR_ERR(desc);
> + }
> +
> + data = kzalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!data) {
> + gpiochip_free_own_desc(desc);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + data->desc = desc;
> + pwm_set_chip_data(pwm, data);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void max7313_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> + struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm_data *data = pwm_get_chip_data(pwm);
> +
> + gpiochip_free_own_desc(data->desc);
> + kfree(data);
> +}
> +
> +static int max7313_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> + struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm *max_pwm = to_max7313_pwm(chip);
> + struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip = to_pca953x(max_pwm);
> + unsigned int intensity, active;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (!state->enabled ||
> + state->period < PWM_PERIOD_NS ||
> + state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* Convert the duty-cycle to be in the [0;16] range */
> + intensity = max7313_pwm_duty_to_intensity(state->duty_cycle);
> +
> + /*
> + * If this is the first PWM to enable, set the master intensity to the
> + * maximum level to let individual outputs the greatest flexibility
> + * range. It also enables the internal oscillator.
> + *
> + * When shutting down the last active PWM, the oscillator is disabled.
> + *
> + * Lazy logic is applied to simplify the code: always enable the
> + * oscillator when there is 1 active pwm, always disable it when there
> + * is none.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&max_pwm->count_lock);
> +
> + __assign_bit(pwm->hwpwm, max_pwm->active_pwm, (bool)intensity);
> + active = bitmap_weight(max_pwm->active_pwm, PWM_MAX_COUNT);
> + if (!active)
> + ret = max7313_pwm_set_master_intensity(pca_chip, 0);
> + else if (active == 1)
> + ret = max7313_pwm_set_master_intensity(pca_chip,
> + PWM_INTENSITY_MASK);
> + mutex_unlock(&max_pwm->count_lock);
> +
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * The hardware is supposedly glitch-free when changing the intensity,
> + * unless we need to flip the blink phase to reach an extremity or the
> + * other of the spectrum (0/16 from phase 1, 16/16 from phase 0).
> + */
> + return max7313_pwm_set_state(pca_chip, pwm, intensity);
> +}
> +
> +static void max7313_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> + struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm *max_pwm = to_max7313_pwm(chip);
> + struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip = to_pca953x(max_pwm);
> + u8 intensity;
> +
> + state->enabled = true;
> + state->period = PWM_PERIOD_NS;
> + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> +
> + intensity = max7313_pwm_get_intensity(pca_chip, pwm->hwpwm);
> + state->duty_cycle = max7313_pwm_intensity_to_duty(intensity);
> +};
> +
> +static const struct pwm_ops max7313_pwm_ops = {
> + .request = max7313_pwm_request,
> + .free = max7313_pwm_free,
> + .apply = max7313_pwm_apply,
> + .get_state = max7313_pwm_get_state,
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +};
> +
> +static int max7313_pwm_probe(struct device *dev,
> + struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm *max_pwm = &pca_chip->pwm;
> + struct pwm_chip *chip = &max_pwm->chip;
> + int ret, i;
> +
> + if (!(pca_chip->driver_data & MAX_PWM))
> + return 0;
> +
> + chip->dev = dev;
> + chip->ops = &max7313_pwm_ops;
> + chip->npwm = pca_chip->gpio_chip.ngpio;
> + chip->base = -1;
> +
> + /* Disable global control (does not affect GPIO functionality) */
> + mutex_lock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + ret = regmap_write_bits(pca_chip->regmap, MAX7313_CONFIGURATION,
> + MAX7313_GLOB_INTENSITY, 0);
> + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + mutex_init(&max_pwm->count_lock);
> + bitmap_zero(max_pwm->active_pwm, PWM_MAX_COUNT);
> +
> + /* Count currently active PWM */
> + mutex_lock(&max_pwm->count_lock);
> + for (i = 0; i < chip->npwm; i++) {
> + if (max7313_pwm_get_intensity(pca_chip, i))
> + set_bit(i, max_pwm->active_pwm);
> + }
> +
> + if (bitmap_weight(max_pwm->active_pwm, PWM_MAX_COUNT))
> + ret = max7313_pwm_set_master_intensity(pca_chip,
> + PWM_INTENSITY_MASK);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&max_pwm->count_lock);
> +
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return pwmchip_add(chip);
> +}
> +
> +static int max7313_pwm_remove(struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm *max_pwm = &pca_chip->pwm;
> + struct pwm_chip *chip = &max_pwm->chip;
> +
> + if (!(pca_chip->driver_data & MAX_PWM))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return pwmchip_remove(chip);
> +}
> +
> static int pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> const struct i2c_device_id *i2c_id)
> {
> @@ -983,6 +1378,14 @@ static int pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> dev_warn(&client->dev, "setup failed, %d\n", ret);
> }
>
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM)) {
> + ret = max7313_pwm_probe(&client->dev, chip);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(&client->dev, "pwm probe failed, %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + }
> +
> return 0;
>
> err_exit:
> @@ -996,6 +1399,12 @@ static int pca953x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> struct pca953x_chip *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> int ret;
>
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM)) {
> + ret = max7313_pwm_remove(chip);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> if (pdata && pdata->teardown) {
> ret = pdata->teardown(client, chip->gpio_chip.base,
> chip->gpio_chip.ngpio, pdata->context);
> @@ -1127,7 +1536,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id pca953x_dt_ids[] = {
>
> { .compatible = "maxim,max7310", .data = OF_953X( 8, 0), },
> { .compatible = "maxim,max7312", .data = OF_953X(16, PCA_INT), },
> - { .compatible = "maxim,max7313", .data = OF_953X(16, PCA_INT), },
> + { .compatible = "maxim,max7313", .data = OF_953X(16, PCA_INT | MAX_PWM), },
> { .compatible = "maxim,max7315", .data = OF_953X( 8, PCA_INT), },
> { .compatible = "maxim,max7318", .data = OF_953X(16, PCA_INT), },
>

2020-06-29 19:20:18

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 5:08 PM Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 3 May 2020
> 12:54:53 +0200:
>
> > The MAX7313 chip is fully compatible with the PCA9535 on its basic
> > functions but can also manage the intensity on each of its ports with
> > PWM. Each output is independent and may be tuned with 16 values (4
> > bits per output). The period is always 32kHz, only the duty-cycle may
> > be changed. One can use any output as GPIO or PWM.

> Can I have a status on this patch please?
>
> If it was forgotten, I would be good to have it queued now, otherwise,
> may I know the reason?

TWIMC, just my 2 cents about this patch.
I don't like it in this form. On the constructive side I can propose
at least two ways to solve:
a) introduce a PWM as a pin mode; move pca953x to pin control; use
this mode with PWM driver being separated from the pin control;
b) introduce an MFD that provides two parts for this GPIO & PWM.

Personally I would go with a) as I know at least one more pin
controller which will get an advantage of this (and it's definitely
not an MFD).

If GPIO / pin control maintainers consider this okay, I will rest my
case, but see above...

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2020-06-29 19:53:18

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:08:44PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hello Uwe, Thierry,
>
> Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 3 May 2020
> 12:54:53 +0200:
>
> > The MAX7313 chip is fully compatible with the PCA9535 on its basic
> > functions but can also manage the intensity on each of its ports with
> > PWM. Each output is independent and may be tuned with 16 values (4
> > bits per output). The period is always 32kHz, only the duty-cycle may
> > be changed. One can use any output as GPIO or PWM.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> > ---
>
> Can I have a status on this patch please?
>
> If it was forgotten, I would be good to have it queued now, otherwise,
> may I know the reason?

You could reply to my feedback ... If you could say there: "What you
want isn't possible" I'd count this as a strong indication to not ask to
implement Andy's suggestion. (Even if this would be possible, I'm not
sure this is a good idea, but still ...)

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachments:

(No filename) (1.18 kB)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments

2020-06-30 07:00:03

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

Hi Uwe,

Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]> wrote on Mon, 29 Jun
2020 21:50:44 +0200:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:08:44PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hello Uwe, Thierry,
> >
> > Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 3 May 2020
> > 12:54:53 +0200:
> >
> > > The MAX7313 chip is fully compatible with the PCA9535 on its basic
> > > functions but can also manage the intensity on each of its ports with
> > > PWM. Each output is independent and may be tuned with 16 values (4
> > > bits per output). The period is always 32kHz, only the duty-cycle may
> > > be changed. One can use any output as GPIO or PWM.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> >
> > Can I have a status on this patch please?
> >
> > If it was forgotten, I would be good to have it queued now, otherwise,
> > may I know the reason?
>
> You could reply to my feedback ... If you could say there: "What you
> want isn't possible" I'd count this as a strong indication to not ask to
> implement Andy's suggestion. (Even if this would be possible, I'm not
> sure this is a good idea, but still ...)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I already replied twice to Andy
about this. Once in October, again in November, then I gave a shot to
the idea of splitting the drivers (GPIO vs. PWM) in January. So I
thought you were sharing your thoughts out loud but was not expecting
any specific feedback on it.

So, no, even if the idea might make sense, it is not doable in a
reasonable amount of time. I am not saying it is impossible, but someone
has to think about it deeper and propose a core structure to handle it
in a generic and clean way so that other drivers sharing the same
properties can rely on it. I am not qualified enough to do it the proper
way in a reasonable time frame.

Thanks,
Miquèl

2020-06-30 09:21:11

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

Hello Miquel,

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:58:28AM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-K?nig <[email protected]> wrote on Mon, 29 Jun
> 2020 21:50:44 +0200:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:08:44PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > Hello Uwe, Thierry,
> > >
> > > Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 3 May 2020
> > > 12:54:53 +0200:
> > >
> > > > The MAX7313 chip is fully compatible with the PCA9535 on its basic
> > > > functions but can also manage the intensity on each of its ports with
> > > > PWM. Each output is independent and may be tuned with 16 values (4
> > > > bits per output). The period is always 32kHz, only the duty-cycle may
> > > > be changed. One can use any output as GPIO or PWM.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Can I have a status on this patch please?
> > >
> > > If it was forgotten, I would be good to have it queued now, otherwise,
> > > may I know the reason?
> >
> > You could reply to my feedback ... If you could say there: "What you
> > want isn't possible" I'd count this as a strong indication to not ask to
> > implement Andy's suggestion. (Even if this would be possible, I'm not
> > sure this is a good idea, but still ...)
>
> Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I already replied twice to Andy
> about this. Once in October, again in November, then I gave a shot to
> the idea of splitting the drivers (GPIO vs. PWM) in January. So I
> thought you were sharing your thoughts out loud but was not expecting
> any specific feedback on it.

Ah ok. Probably the discussion took too long already and was swapped out
on my end.

I will take a look once more later this week. One thing I noticed while
skimming the patch was, that the added defines could make use of a nice
prefix. MAX_PWM for example sounds quite generic.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachments:

(No filename) (2.05 kB)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments

2020-06-30 09:25:06

by Bartosz Golaszewski

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:58 AM Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Uwe,
>
> Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]> wrote on Mon, 29 Jun
> 2020 21:50:44 +0200:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:08:44PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > Hello Uwe, Thierry,
> > >
> > > Miquel Raynal <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 3 May 2020
> > > 12:54:53 +0200:
> > >
> > > > The MAX7313 chip is fully compatible with the PCA9535 on its basic
> > > > functions but can also manage the intensity on each of its ports with
> > > > PWM. Each output is independent and may be tuned with 16 values (4
> > > > bits per output). The period is always 32kHz, only the duty-cycle may
> > > > be changed. One can use any output as GPIO or PWM.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Can I have a status on this patch please?
> > >
> > > If it was forgotten, I would be good to have it queued now, otherwise,
> > > may I know the reason?
> >
> > You could reply to my feedback ... If you could say there: "What you
> > want isn't possible" I'd count this as a strong indication to not ask to
> > implement Andy's suggestion. (Even if this would be possible, I'm not
> > sure this is a good idea, but still ...)
>
> Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I already replied twice to Andy
> about this. Once in October, again in November, then I gave a shot to
> the idea of splitting the drivers (GPIO vs. PWM) in January. So I
> thought you were sharing your thoughts out loud but was not expecting
> any specific feedback on it.
>
> So, no, even if the idea might make sense, it is not doable in a
> reasonable amount of time. I am not saying it is impossible, but someone
> has to think about it deeper and propose a core structure to handle it
> in a generic and clean way so that other drivers sharing the same
> properties can rely on it. I am not qualified enough to do it the proper
> way in a reasonable time frame.
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl

Hi Miquèl,

I can't find anything in any of the previous threads. What was the
reason to not go the MFD way here?

Bartosz

2020-06-30 12:46:42

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

Hallo Bartosz,

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:13:31AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> I can't find anything in any of the previous threads. What was the
> reason to not go the MFD way here?

MFD doesn't work because the different "modes" are not orthogonal. So
this is not a single device that provides several functions at the same
time that can be used in parallel.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachments:

(No filename) (558.00 B)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments

2020-06-30 22:06:21

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:45 PM Uwe Kleine-König
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:13:31AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > I can't find anything in any of the previous threads. What was the
> > reason to not go the MFD way here?
>
> MFD doesn't work because the different "modes" are not orthogonal. So
> this is not a single device that provides several functions at the same
> time that can be used in parallel.

Did I get this correctly that it's either *all* pins are GPIO or *all* are PWM?

Otherwise, it fits from my point of view.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2020-06-30 22:09:17

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

Hello,

Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote on Wed, 1 Jul 2020
00:27:31 +0300:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:45 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:13:31AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > I can't find anything in any of the previous threads. What was the
> > > reason to not go the MFD way here?
> >
> > MFD doesn't work because the different "modes" are not orthogonal. So
> > this is not a single device that provides several functions at the same
> > time that can be used in parallel.
>
> Did I get this correctly that it's either *all* pins are GPIO or *all* are PWM?
>
> Otherwise, it fits from my point of view.
>

Sorry for not being clear in the first place : the choice between
pure GPIO and PWM is on a per output basis. As Uwe said, the two
"modes" are not orthogonal hence the MFD does not fit here IMHO.

Thanks,
Miquèl

2020-07-03 14:54:22

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

Hello Miquel,

On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 12:54:53PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> +static u8 max7313_pwm_get_intensity(struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip,
> + unsigned int idx)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pca_chip->client->dev;
> + unsigned int reg, shift, val, output;
> + u8 intensity;
> + bool phase;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Retrieve the intensity */
> + reg = MAX7313_INTENSITY + (idx / PWM_PER_REG);
> + shift = (idx % PWM_PER_REG) ? PWM_BITS_PER_REG : 0;

I would find

shift = (idx % PWM_PER_REG) * PWM_BITS_PER_REG

more natural here as your formula only works for PWM_PER_REG = 2.

> + mutex_lock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + ret = regmap_read(pca_chip->regmap, reg, &val);
> + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Cannot retrieve PWM intensity (%d)\n", ret);

Please use %pe for error codes.

> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + val >>= shift;
> + val &= PWM_INTENSITY_MASK;
> +
> + /* Retrieve the phase */
> + reg = pca953x_recalc_addr(pca_chip, pca_chip->regs->output, idx, 0, 0);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + ret = regmap_read(pca_chip->regmap, reg, &output);
> + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Cannot retrieve PWM phase (%d)\n", ret);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + phase = output & BIT(idx % BANK_SZ);

Would it make sense to cache the phase value to reduce register access
and locking here?

> [...]
> +static int max7313_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> + struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm *max_pwm = to_max7313_pwm(chip);
> + struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip = to_pca953x(max_pwm);
> + unsigned int intensity, active;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (!state->enabled ||
> + state->period < PWM_PERIOD_NS ||
> + state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> + return -EINVAL;

You could simulate state->enabled = false using duty_cycle = 0.

> + /* Convert the duty-cycle to be in the [0;16] range */
> + intensity = max7313_pwm_duty_to_intensity(state->duty_cycle);

This might return a value > 16 if state->duty_cycle > PWM_PERIOD_NS.
I suggest to do

duty_cycle = min(state->duty_cycle, PWM_PERIOD_NS);

and use that value instead of state->duty_cycle.

> + /*
> + * The hardware is supposedly glitch-free when changing the intensity,
> + * unless we need to flip the blink phase to reach an extremity or the
> + * other of the spectrum (0/16 from phase 1, 16/16 from phase 0).

s/other of/other end of/. I don't understand the difference between
extremity and "other end of the spectrum".

> + */
> + return max7313_pwm_set_state(pca_chip, pwm, intensity);
> +}
> +
> +static void max7313_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> + struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct max7313_pwm *max_pwm = to_max7313_pwm(chip);
> + struct pca953x_chip *pca_chip = to_pca953x(max_pwm);
> + u8 intensity;
> +
> + state->enabled = true;
> + state->period = PWM_PERIOD_NS;
> + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> +
> + intensity = max7313_pwm_get_intensity(pca_chip, pwm->hwpwm);
> + state->duty_cycle = max7313_pwm_intensity_to_duty(intensity);

Please round up the division in max7313_pwm_intensity_to_duty().

(The reasoning is: with rounding down the following can happen:

/* this configures for 15/16 */
pwm_apply_state(pwm, { .duty_cycle = 31249, .period = 31250 });

/* assume this called your .get_state callback */
pwm_get_state(pwm, &state);

/*
* we now have
* state.duty_cycle = 29296;
* state.period = 31250;
* right?
*/

/* this configures for 14/16 because 29296 * 16 / 31250 < 15 */
pwm_apply_state(pwm, &state);

But I want this to be idempotent, i.e. pwm_get_state has to round up and
then return .duty_cycle = 29297 in the above example which is enough to
let .apply_state() configure 15/16 again. Enabling PWM_DEBUG should
catch this.)

> +};

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachments:

(No filename) (4.10 kB)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments

2020-07-04 11:24:00

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 5:53 PM Uwe Kleine-König
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 12:54:53PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:

...

> > + ret = regmap_read(pca_chip->regmap, reg, &val);
> > + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Cannot retrieve PWM intensity (%d)\n", ret);
>
> Please use %pe for error codes.

%pe is mainly for error pointers, with plain integers it will look
awkward a bit.

> > + return 0;
> > + }

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2020-07-04 15:43:57

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] gpio: pca953x: Add Maxim MAX7313 PWM support

On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 02:23:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 5:53 PM Uwe Kleine-K?nig
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 12:54:53PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > + ret = regmap_read(pca_chip->regmap, reg, &val);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pca_chip->i2c_lock);
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "Cannot retrieve PWM intensity (%d)\n", ret);
> >
> > Please use %pe for error codes.
>
> %pe is mainly for error pointers, with plain integers it will look
> awkward a bit.

Yeah, the right usage is:

dev_err(dev, "Cannot retrieve PWM intensity (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(ret));

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachments:

(No filename) (876.00 B)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments

2020-08-12 17:38:29