Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <a51c48a1-8d42-eb10-2350-6962bac8ffdd@sifive.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 08:56:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.1.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] pwm: dwc: add timer clock
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=c3=b6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@sifive.com>,
        jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com,
        William Salmon <william.salmon@sifive.com>,
        Jude Onyenegecha --subject-prefix=PATCH v3 
        <jude.onyenegecha@sifive.com>
References: <20220805165033.140958-1-ben.dooks@sifive.com>
 <20220805165033.140958-7-ben.dooks@sifive.com>
 <20220806100703.uxnf2i4pne2kwk63@pengutronix.de>
From:   Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@sifive.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220806100703.uxnf2i4pne2kwk63@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 06/08/2022 11:07, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Ben,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 05:50:31PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> Add a configurable clock base rate for the pwm as when being built
>> for non-PCI the block may be sourced from an internal clock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@sifive.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>>    - removed the ifdef and merged the other clock patch in here
>> ---
>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
>> index d5f2df6fee62..5c319d0e3d52 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>   #include <linux/module.h>
>>   #include <linux/pci.h>
>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>>   #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>   #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>>   #include <linux/pwm.h>
>> @@ -35,7 +36,6 @@
>>   #define DWC_TIMERS_COMP_VERSION	0xac
>>   
>>   #define DWC_TIMERS_TOTAL	8
>> -#define DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS	10
>>   
>>   /* Timer Control Register */
>>   #define DWC_TIM_CTRL_EN		BIT(0)
>> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ struct dwc_pwm_ctx {
>>   struct dwc_pwm {
>>   	struct pwm_chip chip;
>>   	void __iomem *base;
>> +	struct clk *clk;
>> +	unsigned int clk_ns;
>>   	struct dwc_pwm_ctx ctx[DWC_TIMERS_TOTAL];
>>   };
>>   #define to_dwc_pwm(p)	(container_of((p), struct dwc_pwm, chip))
>> @@ -96,13 +98,13 @@ static int __dwc_pwm_configure_timer(struct dwc_pwm *dwc,
>>   	 * periods and check are the result within HW limits between 1 and
>>   	 * 2^32 periods.
>>   	 */
>> -	tmp = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->duty_cycle, DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS);
>> +	tmp = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->duty_cycle, dwc->clk_ns);
>>   	if (tmp < 1 || tmp > (1ULL << 32))
>>   		return -ERANGE;
>>   	low = tmp - 1;
>>   
>>   	tmp = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period - state->duty_cycle,
>> -				    DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS);
>> +				    dwc->clk_ns);
> 
> You're loosing precision here as clk_ns is already the result of a
> division. We're having
> 
> 	dwc->clk_ns = 1000000000 / clk_get_rate(dwc->clk);
> 
> from dwc_pwm_plat_probe() (in the platform case).
> 
> Consider clk_rate = 285714285 and state->period - state->duty_cycle =
> 300000. Then you get tmp = 100000 while the exact result would be:
> 
> 	300000 * 285714285 / 1000000000 = 85714.2855
> 
> Note that even doing
> 
> 	dwc->clk_ns = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(1000000000, clk_get_rate(dwc->clk))
> 
> only somewhat weakens the problem, with the above numbers you then get
> 75000.
> 
> Also note that rounding closest is also wrong in the calculation of tmp
> because the driver is supposed to implement the biggest period not
> bigger than the requested period and for that period implement the
> biggest duty cycle not bigger than the requested duty cycle.
> 
> Can the hardware emit 0% relative duty cycle (e.g. by disabling)?

Not sure, we do have an IP build option to look at for 0/100% but
this is not enabled for the PCI case.

Given everything else, I would rather fix the division and accuracy
issues once we've got the changes under review sorted.

> 
>>   	if (tmp < 1 || tmp > (1ULL << 32))
>>   		return -ERANGE;
>>   	high = tmp - 1;
>> @@ -177,12 +179,12 @@ static void dwc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>   
>>   	duty = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_LD_CNT(pwm->hwpwm));
>>   	duty += 1;
>> -	duty *= DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS;
>> +	duty *= dwc->clk_ns;
>>   	state->duty_cycle = duty;
>>   
>>   	period = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_LD_CNT2(pwm->hwpwm));
>>   	period += 1;
>> -	period *= DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS;
>> +	period *= dwc->clk_ns;
>>   	period += duty;
>>   	state->period = period;
>>   
>> @@ -205,6 +207,7 @@ static struct dwc_pwm *dwc_pwm_alloc(struct device *dev)
>>   	if (!dwc)
>>   		return NULL;
>>   
>> +	dwc->clk_ns = 10;
>>   	dwc->chip.dev = dev;
>>   	dwc->chip.ops = &dwc_pwm_ops;
>>   	dwc->chip.npwm = DWC_TIMERS_TOTAL;
>> @@ -336,6 +339,14 @@ static int dwc_pwm_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(dwc->base),
>>   				     "failed to map IO\n");
>>   
>> +	dwc->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "timer");
>> +	if (IS_ERR(dwc->clk))
>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(dwc->clk),
>> +				     "failed to get timer clock\n");
>> +
>> +	clk_prepare_enable(dwc->clk);
> 
> If you used devm_clk_get_enabled() you wouldn't need to care separately
> for enabling. (If you stick to separate calls, please add error checking
> for clk_prepare_enable().)

ok, will use.

>> +	dwc->clk_ns = 1000000000 / clk_get_rate(dwc->clk);
> 
> s/1000000000/NSEC_PER_SEC/

ok, fixed.

>> +
>>   	ret = pwmchip_add(&dwc->chip);
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		return ret;
>> @@ -347,6 +358,7 @@ static int dwc_pwm_plat_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   {
>>   	struct dwc_pwm *dwc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>   
>> +	clk_disable_unprepare(dwc->clk);
>>   	pwmchip_remove(&dwc->chip);
> 
> This is wrong, you must not disable the clock before calling
> pwmchip_remove() as the PWM is supposed to stay functional until
> pwmchip_remove() returns.

I've moved to devm_clk_get_enabled and devm_pwmchip_add()

> 
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>