Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp5020041ybv; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:06:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz0yOQdY1rWDXAUh6Q/RSNHpJGT4DSW//jtI3i//9JB2/SxAau+/OB7qZxwuwV8px0OeseU X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1216:: with SMTP id r22mr3520721otp.323.1582729562432; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:06:02 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1582729562; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=my+pamC/oMqvFRVFsZv+Llm2qRdWZQGRHggzb5qdlYzxTmGeLIdrn/Q8lHwKSsqFFH 9oEckp7ReSkdomoWgwnaYdnp+WxlMjjpkrDP+yFs04WnJhZ2zROm4PVoh5HfGisi7s3x DUg7+QMIRixjod6TqNdzHWfzUEgYzN4gje2H0rxTaVQh97tTW9tWMDhDVqvA8vRQZXDg 4wi3wPlfqMxOooXz4Fv3T/x9QPMtJqOLgSYpOKJqa9CMw69R/vYwaQktc/dbsB+SCD6y UZROfl4rPh93qN/Ftvcs9svHkeHeO7W2iKsNFMHGso7aQvrlKPEVxcP6sxAHddb1nvCM ySeg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=mtqBe3KyitjCYu2JYUDpbV+Wv+seurjB3lWCAxCPxjY=; b=Ei2jWH/rXnLMHyw6CrbKbLqYuPIczAyOJ1TAFtVLvqMES6GqYD4wPTzcJa90EizyY8 CwEZIO5/s4HcPdtfdEgiw81rsV9IFPzIh05PllCnkZS35j98y8SKh8qHT5WNYTQAxYk3 uLQq0AMkuu/Ic20driLIvQv+XqV68o8WBoPZZvLdvfpp3gZRTwxuk4MUDLcJjKvm2P4j OdsbgXzMmL7hltgcyEWYnXsYhWSAF2cWq0iIkRwyS0p5EFOU/hiOo+FqHTpebBH21OCV Fa3irdmHeE2DWhcVIZci/O9rI/TAlgWERG926D6/Z6FYylTidAIX/p9pGjHC+A6PbBeD ZzSw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 110si1462989otj.303.2020.02.26.07.05.44; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:06:02 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727249AbgBZPFf (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:05:35 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([85.220.165.71]:56417 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726148AbgBZPFf (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:05:35 -0500 Received: from pty.hi.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:100:1d::c5]) by metis.ext.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j6yFg-0003zb-DY; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:05:32 +0100 Received: from ukl by pty.hi.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1j6yFg-00072S-4V; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:05:32 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:05:32 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Matthias Schiffer Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] pwm: pca9685: migrate config/enable/disable to apply Message-ID: <20200226150532.n45yl6hx6vjolde2@pengutronix.de> References: <20200226135229.24929-1-matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com> <20200226135229.24929-4-matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200226135229.24929-4-matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:67c:670:100:1d::c5 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 02:52:29PM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote: > For consistency with disabled state, initialize all LEDs in FULL_OFF > state during probe. > > This also fixes a broken interaction between config with 100% duty cycle > (which would set the LED to FULL_ON) and enable (which would unset > FULL_ON), effectively disabling the LED again when enable was called > after config. This behaviour was observed with the leds-pwm driver when > directly switching from 0 to maximum brightness. > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 53 +++++++++++---------------------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c > index 370691b21107..e266cbbd39bf 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c > @@ -219,15 +219,16 @@ static void pca9685_set_sleep_mode(struct pca9685 *pca, bool enable) > } > } > > -static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > - int duty_ns, int period_ns) > +static int pca9685_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > + const struct pwm_state *state) > { > struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip); > unsigned long long duty; > int prescale; > > - if (period_ns != pca->period_ns) { > - prescale = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(PCA9685_OSC_CLOCK_MHZ * period_ns, > + if (state->period != pca->period_ns) { > + prescale = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(PCA9685_OSC_CLOCK_MHZ * > + state->period, > PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE * 1000) - 1; > > if (prescale >= PCA9685_PRESCALE_MIN && > @@ -247,7 +248,7 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > /* Wake the chip up */ > pca9685_set_sleep_mode(pca, false); > > - pca->period_ns = period_ns; > + pca->period_ns = state->period; > } else { > dev_err(chip->dev, > "prescaler not set: period out of bounds!\n"); > @@ -255,13 +256,13 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > } > } > > - if (duty_ns < 1) { > + if (!state->enabled || state->duty_cycle < 1) { > + /* Set the full OFF bit */ > regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm), LED_FULL); > - > return 0; > } > > - if (duty_ns == period_ns) { > + if (state->duty_cycle == state->period) { > /* Clear both OFF registers */ > regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_L(pwm->hwpwm), 0x0); > regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm), 0x0); > @@ -272,8 +273,8 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > return 0; > } > > - duty = PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE * (unsigned long long)duty_ns; > - duty = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(duty, period_ns); > + duty = PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE * (unsigned long long)state->duty_cycle; > + duty = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(duty, state->period); > > regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_L(pwm->hwpwm), (int)duty & 0xff); > regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm), > @@ -285,29 +286,6 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > return 0; You seem to ignore state->polarity which is wrong. > } > > -static int pca9685_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) > -{ > - struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip); > - > - /* > - * Clear the full-off bit. > - * It has precedence over the others and must be off. > - */ > - regmap_update_bits(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm), LED_FULL, 0x0); > - > - return 0; > -} > - > -static void pca9685_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) > -{ > - struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip); > - > - regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm), LED_FULL); > - > - /* Clear the LED_OFF counter. */ > - regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_L(pwm->hwpwm), 0x0); > -} > - > static int pca9685_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) > { > struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip); > @@ -321,14 +299,11 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) > > static void pca9685_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) > { > - pca9685_pwm_disable(chip, pwm); > pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); > } > > static const struct pwm_ops pca9685_pwm_ops = { > - .enable = pca9685_pwm_enable, > - .disable = pca9685_pwm_disable, > - .config = pca9685_pwm_config, > + .apply = pca9685_pwm_apply, > .request = pca9685_pwm_request, > .free = pca9685_pwm_free, > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > @@ -377,9 +352,9 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_MODE2, mode2); > > - /* clear all "full off" bits */ > + /* Set all LEDs full off */ > regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_L, 0); > - regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H, 0); > + regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H, LED_FULL); This looks wrong or at least unrelated? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |