Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212592-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:07:15 +0200
From: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>, 
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pwm: cros-ec: Don't care about consumers in
 .get_state()
Message-ID: <p322xo44wkcrmaewbz6pf2jn4zxw2wzzwikc3xkdl6mh4yc7od@rnxc4qdj6vxx>
References: <20240607084416.897777-5-u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>
 <20240607084416.897777-6-u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>
 <ZmgP5NTPEGM0M2Li@google.com>
 <dbygoq4rzxnzforpdsvuy5jze2rxqszi6qxtx6q37yxwjo36o6@qfoc6iz2nbay>
 <Zmk_wolV5vK4JPCV@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dux3ffohujxukeib"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zmk_wolV5vK4JPCV@google.com>


--dux3ffohujxukeib
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 06:27:14AM +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:39:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 08:50:44AM +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 10:44:15AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
> > > > The get_state() callback is never called (in a visible way) after t=
here
> > > > is a consumer for a pwm device. The core handles loosing the inform=
ation
> > > > about duty_cycle just fine.
> > >=20
> > > ChromeOS EC has no separated "enabled" state, it sees `duty =3D=3D 0`=
 as
> > > "disabled"[1].  1db37f9561b2 ("pwm: cros-ec: Cache duty cycle value")
> > > caches the value in kernel side so that it can retrieve the original =
duty
> > > value even if (struct pwm_state *)->enabled is false.
> >=20
> > There is no need to cache, so the following would work:
>=20
> Ack.
>=20
> > > To make sure I understand, did you mean the original duty value could=
 be less
> > > important because:
> > > - We are less caring as it is in a debug context at [2]?
> > > - At [3], the PWM device is still initializing.
> >=20
> > It doesn't really matter that this is about debug or initialisation. The
> > key here is that the core can handle the PWM using duty_cycle 0 (or
> > anything else) when it was requested to be disabled.
> >=20
> >=20
> > > [1]: https://crrev.com/0e16954460a08133b2557150e0897014ea2b9672/commo=
n/pwm.c#66
> > > [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc3/source/drivers/pwm/co=
re.c#L52
> > > [3]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc3/source/drivers/pwm/co=
re.c#L371
>=20
> I was trying to understand the description in the commit message:
> : The get_state() callback is never called (in a visible way) after there
> : is a consumer for a pwm device.
>=20
> I guess I understood; the core reads the duty value via get_state() when:
> - Initializing the device for the intial value.

Yes, that a consumer cannot do any assumptions about a PWM just aquired,
so there is no danger for confusion.

> - Debugging for checking if apply() really takes effect.

Right, and the read pwm_state is only used in the core. The core won't
be confused about disabled vs. duty=3D0. Consumers never see the result of
the .get_state callback.

> What 1db37f9561b2 worried about is already addressed by the core[4].
> [4]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc3/source/drivers/pwm/core.c=
#L495

What 1db37f9561b2 worried about is bogus, because pwm_get_state()
doesn't call the .get_state() callback:

	$ git show 1db37f9561b2:include/linux/pwm.h | awk '/void pwm_get_state/,/^=
$/'
	static inline void pwm_get_state(const struct pwm_device *pwm,
					 struct pwm_state *state)
	{
		*state =3D pwm->state;
	}

> Reviewed-by: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>

I'll apply the patch under discussion and create a proper patch for the
ad-hoc change from my previous mail.

Thanks
Uwe

--dux3ffohujxukeib
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEP4GsaTp6HlmJrf7Tj4D7WH0S/k4FAmZqjI8ACgkQj4D7WH0S
/k5jCAgAsA5+r0pbCBGPDyie+4QAe8InHSyHZ7STwVbBOGPL5OUvhqgMzs0yBS+m
PUSC5vbmRyXAmEvq5/iuD65ty1ggYj8bNTjjUtzooSUXzssJWUorWxOqhotFtOpn
0M9Pd1XbMMPOuFfpvYJGoko4hA8SmSiHBmZAMiRfBws7ca7gUELwUreumcX5yJk0
UlmfrdmHdSkPcl0GcOslvvYjS5+m8KSwrjnuVOOnBth+23L6IxpWUiqb2Hp3nem7
TL1vumpfZV8Lqiv833fzmTjugihshRWA7H27hJS7C7ZZDGDB2Aka+WbEuuMypqFA
05zw0QzJ0h16YYyk7D+IPAi+r/WHtg==
=M2it
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--dux3ffohujxukeib--