Some pwm devices require sleeping, for example if the pwm device is
connected over i2c. However, many pwm devices could be used from atomic
context, e.g. memmory mapped pwm. This is useful for, for example, the
pwm-ir-tx driver which requires precise timing. Sleeping causes havoc
with the generated IR signal.
Since not all pmw devices can support atomic context, we also add a
pwm_is_atomic() function to check if it is supported.
Signed-off-by: Sean Young <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst | 9 +++++
drivers/pwm/core.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c | 1 -
include/linux/pwm.h | 29 ++++++++++++++-
4 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst
index 5f6d1540dcd7e..921d1306e5932 100644
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/pwm.rst
@@ -43,6 +43,15 @@ After being requested, a PWM has to be configured using::
int pwm_apply_cansleep(struct pwm_device *pwm, struct pwm_state *state);
+Some PWM devices can be used from atomic context. You can check if this is
+supported with::
+
+ bool pwm_is_atomic(struct pwm_device *pwm);
+
+If true, the PWM can be configured from atomic context with::
+
+ int pwm_apply_atomic(struct pwm_device *pwm, struct pwm_state *state);
+
This API controls both the PWM period/duty_cycle config and the
enable/disable state.
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 928531c34f481..84a849a69b347 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -463,24 +463,15 @@ static void pwm_apply_debug(struct pwm_device *pwm,
}
/**
- * pwm_apply_cansleep() - atomically apply a new state to a PWM device
+ * pwm_apply_unchecked() - atomically apply a new state to a PWM device
* @pwm: PWM device
* @state: new state to apply
*/
-int pwm_apply_cansleep(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
+static int pwm_apply_unchecked(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
{
struct pwm_chip *chip;
int err;
- /*
- * Some lowlevel driver's implementations of .apply() make use of
- * mutexes, also with some drivers only returning when the new
- * configuration is active calling pwm_apply_cansleep() from atomic context
- * is a bad idea. So make it explicit that calling this function might
- * sleep.
- */
- might_sleep();
-
if (!pwm || !state || !state->period ||
state->duty_cycle > state->period)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -501,16 +492,64 @@ int pwm_apply_cansleep(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
pwm->state = *state;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/**
+ * pwm_apply_cansleep() - atomically apply a new state to a PWM device
+ * Cannot be used in atomic context.
+ * @pwm: PWM device
+ * @state: new state to apply
+ */
+int pwm_apply_cansleep(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+ int err;
+
+ /*
+ * Some lowlevel driver's implementations of .apply() make use of
+ * mutexes, also with some drivers only returning when the new
+ * configuration is active calling pwm_apply_cansleep() from atomic context
+ * is a bad idea. So make it explicit that calling this function might
+ * sleep.
+ */
+ might_sleep();
+
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM_DEBUG) && pwm->chip->atomic) {
+ /*
+ * Catch any sleeping drivers when atomic is set.
+ */
+ non_block_start();
+ err = pwm_apply_unchecked(pwm, state);
+ non_block_end();
+ } else {
+ err = pwm_apply_unchecked(pwm, state);
+ }
+
/*
* only do this after pwm->state was applied as some
* implementations of .get_state depend on this
*/
pwm_apply_debug(pwm, state);
- return 0;
+ return err;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_apply_cansleep);
+/**
+ * pwm_apply_atomic() - apply a new state to a PWM device from atomic context
+ * Not all pwm devices support this function, check with pwm_is_atomic().
+ * @pwm: PWM device
+ * @state: new state to apply
+ */
+int pwm_apply_atomic(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+ WARN_ONCE(!pwm->chip->atomic,
+ "sleeping pwm driver used in atomic context");
+
+ return pwm_apply_unchecked(pwm, state);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_apply_atomic);
+
/**
* pwm_capture() - capture and report a PWM signal
* @pwm: PWM device
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c
index 4239f2c3e8b2a..47ea92cd8c67f 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c
@@ -11,7 +11,6 @@
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/ioport.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
-#include <linux/mutex.h>
#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/platform_device.h>
#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
index c4b066f7c5097..495aba06c64c3 100644
--- a/include/linux/pwm.h
+++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
@@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ struct pwm_ops {
* @npwm: number of PWMs controlled by this chip
* @of_xlate: request a PWM device given a device tree PWM specifier
* @of_pwm_n_cells: number of cells expected in the device tree PWM specifier
+ * @atomic: can the driver execute pwm_apply_cansleep in atomic context
* @list: list node for internal use
* @pwms: array of PWM devices allocated by the framework
*/
@@ -299,6 +300,7 @@ struct pwm_chip {
struct pwm_device * (*of_xlate)(struct pwm_chip *chip,
const struct of_phandle_args *args);
unsigned int of_pwm_n_cells;
+ bool atomic;
/* only used internally by the PWM framework */
struct list_head list;
@@ -308,6 +310,7 @@ struct pwm_chip {
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM)
/* PWM user APIs */
int pwm_apply_cansleep(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state);
+int pwm_apply_atomic(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state);
int pwm_adjust_config(struct pwm_device *pwm);
/**
@@ -378,6 +381,17 @@ static inline void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
pwm_apply_cansleep(pwm, &state);
}
+/**
+ * pwm_is_atomic() - is pwm_apply_atomic() supported?
+ * @pwm: PWM device
+ *
+ * Returns: true pwm_apply_atomic() can be called from atomic context.
+ */
+static inline bool pwm_is_atomic(struct pwm_device *pwm)
+{
+ return pwm->chip->atomic;
+}
+
/* PWM provider APIs */
int pwm_capture(struct pwm_device *pwm, struct pwm_capture *result,
unsigned long timeout);
@@ -406,16 +420,27 @@ struct pwm_device *devm_fwnode_pwm_get(struct device *dev,
struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
const char *con_id);
#else
+static inline bool pwm_is_atomic(struct pwm_device *pwm)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
static inline int pwm_apply_cansleep(struct pwm_device *pwm,
const struct pwm_state *state)
{
might_sleep();
- return -ENOTSUPP;
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+}
+
+static inline int pwm_apply_atomic(struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ const struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
static inline int pwm_adjust_config(struct pwm_device *pwm)
{
- return -ENOTSUPP;
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
static inline int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns,
--
2.42.1
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 04:16:18PM +0000, Sean Young wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> index c4b066f7c5097..495aba06c64c3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> @@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ struct pwm_ops {
> * @npwm: number of PWMs controlled by this chip
> * @of_xlate: request a PWM device given a device tree PWM specifier
> * @of_pwm_n_cells: number of cells expected in the device tree PWM specifier
> + * @atomic: can the driver execute pwm_apply_cansleep in atomic context
I'm a little reluctant to suggest that we rename this to might_sleep as
well because it would require that we audit each and every driver to set
this properly, since by default all devices have so far been defaulting
to "might_sleep". But then again, I think that's something that we're
going to need to do at some point anyway.
In the interim, I think we could keep it like this and address this as a
follow-up.
Thierry
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 02:36:51PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 04:16:18PM +0000, Sean Young wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > index c4b066f7c5097..495aba06c64c3 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > @@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ struct pwm_ops {
> > * @npwm: number of PWMs controlled by this chip
> > * @of_xlate: request a PWM device given a device tree PWM specifier
> > * @of_pwm_n_cells: number of cells expected in the device tree PWM specifier
> > + * @atomic: can the driver execute pwm_apply_cansleep in atomic context
>
> I'm a little reluctant to suggest that we rename this to might_sleep as
> well because it would require that we audit each and every driver to set
> this properly, since by default all devices have so far been defaulting
> to "might_sleep". But then again, I think that's something that we're
> going to need to do at some point anyway.
>
> In the interim, I think we could keep it like this and address this as a
> follow-up.
Yes, I agree that the name atomic is not ideal. However, calling it
might_sleep means we have to touch every driver. That's not impossible,
but not ideal either.
For now, I'll leave it as is.
Sean