Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201207193629.493241-1-clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>
 <20201207220025.42b6g76wq7ph5nvb@pengutronix.de> <X863KNo0IaekkU7q@workstation.tuxnet>
 <20201208091033.bxzrlad7mjbe3dsp@pengutronix.de> <X89RgpTb3sBBI++w@workstation.tuxnet>
 <X8+DI7ZN7mXtsxv9@ulmo> <CAGngYiXgVbEXj-yR=DTeA4pO-N3=WhiHjQhknFsbfXBeD_yRbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <X8+waLH58pOaMI06@ulmo>
In-Reply-To: <X8+waLH58pOaMI06@ulmo>
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:15:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGngYiUP7BBF4i8YFXREA291dBTc4JytAFV9AoSjzMYTW7MyjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] pwm: pca9685: Switch to atomic API
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc:     Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        David Jander <david@protonic.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is this really that complicated? I sounds to me like the only thing that
> you need is to have some sort of usage count for the prescaler. Whenever
> you want to use the prescaler you check that usage count. If it is zero,
> then you can just set it to whatever you need. If it isn't zero, that
> means somebody else is already using it and you can't change it, which
> means you have to check if you're trying to request the value that's
> already set. If so, you can succeed, but otherwise you'll have to fail.

+1
I think your suggestion is an elegant solution to get the required behaviour.

One possible complication is synchronization. The sysfs interface has a lock
protecting against concurrent pwm_apply() calls. But the in-kernel
API (e.g. pwm_apply_state()) doesn't seem to. This is not normally a problem
when pwm bits are strictly separated. But in this case we have shared state
(prescale value and use count), so we probably need to protect pwm_apply()
with a mutex?

Not sure if it is currently possible *in practice* for two regulator consumer
drivers to call pwm_apply() from different threads. But Linux is slowly moving
towards asynchronous probing.

Uwe and Thierry, what is your opinion? Do you think we need to worry about
synchronization?