All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v1 4/4] pwm: lpss: Switch to new atomic API
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:43:25 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161024144325.130353-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161024144325.130353-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

Instead of doing things separately, which is not so reliable on some platforms,
switch the driver to use new atomic API, i.e. ->apply() callback.

The change has been tested on Intel platforms such as Broxton, BayTrail, and
Merrifield.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index e7d612e..7d3ac82 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -85,15 +85,20 @@ static inline void pwm_lpss_write(const struct pwm_device *pwm, u32 value)
 
 static void pwm_lpss_update(struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
+	/*
+	 * Set a limit for busyloop since not all implementations correctly
+	 * clear PWM_SW_UPDATE bit (at least it's not visible on OS side).
+	 */
+	unsigned int count = 10;
+
 	pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_SW_UPDATE);
-	/* Give it some time to propagate */
-	usleep_range(10, 50);
+	while (pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & PWM_SW_UPDATE && --count)
+		usleep_range(10, 20);
 }
 
-static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			   int duty_ns, int period_ns)
 {
-	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
 	unsigned long long on_time_div;
 	unsigned long c = lpwm->info->clk_rate, base_unit_range;
 	unsigned long long base_unit, freq = NSEC_PER_SEC;
@@ -114,8 +119,6 @@ static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	do_div(on_time_div, period_ns);
 	on_time_div = 255ULL - on_time_div;
 
-	pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
-
 	ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm);
 	ctrl &= ~PWM_ON_TIME_DIV_MASK;
 	ctrl &= ~(base_unit_range << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT);
@@ -124,41 +127,43 @@ static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	ctrl |= on_time_div;
 	pwm_lpss_write(pwm, ctrl);
 
-	/*
-	 * If the PWM is already enabled we need to notify the hardware
-	 * about the change by setting PWM_SW_UPDATE.
-	 */
-	if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
-		pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
-
-	pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
-
+	pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int pwm_lpss_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
+static void pwm_lpss_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
-	pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
-
-	/*
-	 * Hardware must first see PWM_SW_UPDATE before the PWM can be
-	 * enabled.
-	 */
-	pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
 	pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_ENABLE);
-	return 0;
 }
 
-static void pwm_lpss_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
+static void pwm_lpss_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
 	pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
-	pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+}
+
+static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+			  struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
+
+	if (state->enabled) {
+		if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
+			pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
+			pwm_lpss_config(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
+			pwm_lpss_enable(pwm);
+		} else {
+			pwm_lpss_config(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
+		}
+	} else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
+		pwm_lpss_disable(pwm);
+		pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+	}
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static const struct pwm_ops pwm_lpss_ops = {
-	.config = pwm_lpss_config,
-	.enable = pwm_lpss_enable,
-	.disable = pwm_lpss_disable,
+	.apply = pwm_lpss_apply,
 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 };
 
-- 
2.9.3

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-10-24 14:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-24 14:43 [PATCH v1 0/4] pwm: lpss: clean up series Andy Shevchenko
2016-10-24 14:43 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] pwm: lpss: Avoid potential overflow of base_unit Andy Shevchenko
2016-10-25  9:33   ` Mika Westerberg
2016-10-24 14:43 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] pwm: lpss: Allow duty cycle to be 0 Andy Shevchenko
2016-10-25  9:38   ` Mika Westerberg
2016-10-24 14:43 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] pwm: lpss: Do not export board infos for different PWM types Andy Shevchenko
2016-10-24 14:43 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2016-10-25  9:39   ` [PATCH v1 4/4] pwm: lpss: Switch to new atomic API Mika Westerberg
2016-11-14 10:32 ` [PATCH v1 0/4] pwm: lpss: clean up series Andy Shevchenko
2016-12-14 16:41 ` Andy Shevchenko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20161024144325.130353-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.