Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181107093613.26734-1-peron.clem@gmail.com> <20181107093613.26734-2-peron.clem@gmail.com>
 <20181107162908.tejzekhc35pbknut@pengutronix.de> <CAJiuCccMtBsCVHeqxQhXRj_Ltdv91Qk-6WDKAhb5S7whZOWsAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181108105922.p557jxrebjlhnsho@pengutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20181108105922.p557jxrebjlhnsho@pengutronix.de>
From:   Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 07:32:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD7vxxKA3feHK97WiQsb-003qp4Cvj2CQ3C+1sfpo9iZUBhm_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pwm: bcm-kona: apply pwm settings on enable
To:     u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de
Cc:     peron.clem@gmail.com, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
        Linux PWM <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        suji.velupillai@broadcom.com, Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 2:59 AM Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> adding Tim Kryger as the initial author of the bcm-kona driver to Cc:.
> Maybe he can shed some light to the questions below?
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 11:47:17AM +0100, Cl=C3=A9ment P=C3=A9ron wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 17:29, Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig
> > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 10:36:13AM +0100, Cl=C3=A9ment P=C3=A9ron wro=
te:
> > > > From: Suji Velupillai <suji.velupillai@broadcom.com>
> > > >
> > > > When pwm_bl framework calls enable, a call to pwm_is_enabled(pwm) s=
till
> > > > return false, this prevents the backlight being turn on at boot tim=
e.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suji Velupillai <suji.velupillai@broadcom.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cl=C3=A9ment P=C3=A9ron <peron.clem@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> > > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.=
c
> > > > index 09a95aeb3a70..d991d53c4b38 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c
> > > > @@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ static void kona_pwmc_apply_settings(struct kon=
a_pwmc *kp, unsigned int chan)
> > > >       ndelay(400);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -static int kona_pwmc_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_devi=
ce *pwm,
> > > > -                         int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> > > > +static int __pwmc_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device =
*pwm,
> > > > +                      int duty_ns, int period_ns, bool pwmc_enable=
d)
> > > >  {
> > > >       struct kona_pwmc *kp =3D to_kona_pwmc(chip);
> > > >       u64 val, div, rate;
> > > > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static int kona_pwmc_config(struct pwm_chip *ch=
ip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > >        * always calculated above to ensure the new values are
> > > >        * validated immediately instead of on enable.
> > > >        */
> > > > -     if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
> > > > +     if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm) || pwmc_enabled) {
> > >
> > > Having pwm-API-calls in hw-drivers is ugly. Apart from not giving the
> > > intended return code this function should IMHO be reserved to pwm
> > > consumers. The underlaying problem is that pwm-bl does:
> > >
> > >         pwm_config(pwm, duty_cycle, period);
> > >         pwm_enable(pwm);
> > >
> > > and expects that the duty_cycle and period is used then. Doesn't
> > > everything works just fine if the if-block is always executed?
> >
> > Tested and works fine for me. But I only have a Cygnus proc.
> > Maybe there is some issue with Kona as explained by the comment (even
> > if I don't understand it well).
> >
> >  * Don't apply settings if disabled. The period and duty cycle are
> >  * always calculated above to ensure the new values are
> >  * validated immediately instead of on enable.
>
> I wouldn't understand that as "If you apply settings on a disabled PWM a
> kitten dies". I think it only means: At the current point in time
> duty_cycle and period are not important as the hardware is off. So don't
> bother to write these values to the hardware.
>
> @Tim: Do you think (or can test if) there is a problem when doing
>
> -       if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
> +       if (1) {
>
> in kona_pwmc_config? (For sure the comment needs adaption and the if (1)
> shouldn't make it into the driver, just used that as shorthand for the
> change I want to suggest.)
>
> But still better than dropping the check is to convert the driver to the
> atomic API. With that this problem would simply not occur.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig       =
     |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  =
|

There is no per channel disable in the hardware so to simulate a
disable, duty is set to zero.

The check is there to prevent new config values from applying until
the channel is enabled.