From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 08/17] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:13:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200831111358.GF1688464@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200830125753.230420-9-hdegoede@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2017 bytes --]
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 02:57:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I
> noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and
> there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128,
> and there are 256 duty-cycle steps.
>
> The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clock-divider
> setting of 1 means that the PWM output is running at 6 MHZ, if that
> is true, where do these 256 duty-cycle steps come from?
>
> This would require an internal frequency of 256 * 6 MHz = 1.5 GHz, that
> seems unlikely for a PMIC which is using a silicon process optimized for
> power-switching transistors. It is way more likely that there is an 8
> bit counter for the duty cycle which acts as an extra fixed divider
> wrt the PWM output frequency.
>
> The main user of the pwm-crc driver is the i915 GPU driver which uses it
> for backlight control. Lets compare the PWM register values set by the
> video-BIOS (the GOP), assuming the extra fixed divider is present versus
> the PWM frequency specified in the Video-BIOS-Tables:
>
> Device: PWM Hz set by BIOS PWM Hz specified in VBT
> Asus T100TA 200 200
> Asus T100HA 200 200
> Lenovo Miix 2 8 23437 20000
> Toshiba WT8-A 23437 20000
>
> So as we can see if we assume the extra division by 256 then the register
> values set by the GOP are an exact match for the VBT values, where as
> otherwise the values would be of by a factor of 256.
>
> This commit fixes the period / duty_cycle calculations to take the
> extra division by 256 into account.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Use NSEC_PER_USEC instead of adding a new (non-sensical) NSEC_PER_MHZ define
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 08/17] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:13:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200831111358.GF1688464@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200830125753.230420-9-hdegoede@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2017 bytes --]
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 02:57:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I
> noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and
> there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128,
> and there are 256 duty-cycle steps.
>
> The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clock-divider
> setting of 1 means that the PWM output is running at 6 MHZ, if that
> is true, where do these 256 duty-cycle steps come from?
>
> This would require an internal frequency of 256 * 6 MHz = 1.5 GHz, that
> seems unlikely for a PMIC which is using a silicon process optimized for
> power-switching transistors. It is way more likely that there is an 8
> bit counter for the duty cycle which acts as an extra fixed divider
> wrt the PWM output frequency.
>
> The main user of the pwm-crc driver is the i915 GPU driver which uses it
> for backlight control. Lets compare the PWM register values set by the
> video-BIOS (the GOP), assuming the extra fixed divider is present versus
> the PWM frequency specified in the Video-BIOS-Tables:
>
> Device: PWM Hz set by BIOS PWM Hz specified in VBT
> Asus T100TA 200 200
> Asus T100HA 200 200
> Lenovo Miix 2 8 23437 20000
> Toshiba WT8-A 23437 20000
>
> So as we can see if we assume the extra division by 256 then the register
> values set by the GOP are an exact match for the VBT values, where as
> otherwise the values would be of by a factor of 256.
>
> This commit fixes the period / duty_cycle calculations to take the
> extra division by 256 into account.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Use NSEC_PER_USEC instead of adding a new (non-sensical) NSEC_PER_MHZ define
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 08/17] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:13:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200831111358.GF1688464@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200830125753.230420-9-hdegoede@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2017 bytes --]
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 02:57:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I
> noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and
> there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128,
> and there are 256 duty-cycle steps.
>
> The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clock-divider
> setting of 1 means that the PWM output is running at 6 MHZ, if that
> is true, where do these 256 duty-cycle steps come from?
>
> This would require an internal frequency of 256 * 6 MHz = 1.5 GHz, that
> seems unlikely for a PMIC which is using a silicon process optimized for
> power-switching transistors. It is way more likely that there is an 8
> bit counter for the duty cycle which acts as an extra fixed divider
> wrt the PWM output frequency.
>
> The main user of the pwm-crc driver is the i915 GPU driver which uses it
> for backlight control. Lets compare the PWM register values set by the
> video-BIOS (the GOP), assuming the extra fixed divider is present versus
> the PWM frequency specified in the Video-BIOS-Tables:
>
> Device: PWM Hz set by BIOS PWM Hz specified in VBT
> Asus T100TA 200 200
> Asus T100HA 200 200
> Lenovo Miix 2 8 23437 20000
> Toshiba WT8-A 23437 20000
>
> So as we can see if we assume the extra division by 256 then the register
> values set by the GOP are an exact match for the VBT values, where as
> otherwise the values would be of by a factor of 256.
>
> This commit fixes the period / duty_cycle calculations to take the
> extra division by 256 into account.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Use NSEC_PER_USEC instead of adding a new (non-sensical) NSEC_PER_MHZ define
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-31 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 117+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-30 12:57 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 00/17] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 01/17] ACPI / LPSS: Resume Cherry Trail PWM controller in no-irq phase Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 02/17] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (at activation) Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 03/17] pwm: lpss: Fix off by one error in base_unit math in pwm_lpss_prepare() Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:01 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:01 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 04/17] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:02 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:02 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:02 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 05/17] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:03 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:03 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 06/17] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_restore() when restoring state on resume Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:10 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:10 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:46 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:46 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:46 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 13:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 13:15 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 13:15 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 17:57 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 17:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 17:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-09-01 8:09 ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-09-01 8:09 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-09-01 8:09 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 07/17] pwm: lpss: Always update state and set update bit Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 8:56 ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-31 8:56 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-31 8:56 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-31 11:50 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:50 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:50 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:13 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:13 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:13 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:26 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:26 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:26 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 13:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 13:31 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 13:31 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 08/17] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256 Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:13 ` Thierry Reding [this message]
2020-08-31 11:13 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:13 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:14 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:14 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:14 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 09/17] pwm: crc: Fix off-by-one error in the clock-divider calculations Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:15 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:15 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 10/17] pwm: crc: Fix period changes not having any effect Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:15 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:15 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 11/17] pwm: crc: Enable/disable PWM output on enable/disable Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:16 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:16 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 12/17] pwm: crc: Implement apply() method to support the new atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:17 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:17 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 13/17] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-31 11:18 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:18 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-31 11:18 ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 14/17] drm/i915: panel: Add get_vbt_pwm_freq() helper Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 15/17] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 16/17] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM min setting " Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 17/17] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API " Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 12:57 ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-30 13:25 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Patchwork
2020-08-30 13:43 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2020-08-30 15:37 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
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=20200831111358.GF1688464@ulmo \
--to=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/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.