linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 04/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for hardware readout
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:24:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160604082426.493b220d@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160603202006.GC124478@google.com>

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:20:06 -0700
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Implement the ->get_state() function to expose initial state.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > index 68d72ce..dfacf7d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_data {
> >  
> >  	void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> >  			   struct pwm_device *pwm, bool enable);
> > +	void (*get_state)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > +			  struct pwm_state *state);
> >  };
> >  
> >  static inline struct rockchip_pwm_chip *to_rockchip_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *c)
> > @@ -75,6 +77,19 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> >  	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void rockchip_pwm_get_state_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> > +				      struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > +				      struct pwm_state *state)
> > +{
> > +	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +	u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> > +	u32 val;
> > +
> > +	val = readl(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);  
> 
> Nit: I just noticed you've been starting to use readl()/writel() in this
> series, where previously {readl,writel}_relaxed() were being used. Any
> reason?

Because I'm lazy and usually don't take the time to think whether it's
safe of not to use the _relaxed() versions :-). Not sure you'll have a
noticeable improvement by using _relaxed() for a PWM device by the
way, but I can change that ;-).

> 
> Anyway, LGTM:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> 
> > +	if ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf)
> > +		state->enabled = true;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> >  				       struct pwm_device *pwm, bool enable)
> >  {
> > @@ -98,6 +113,53 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> >  	writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> > +				      struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > +				      struct pwm_state *state)
> > +{
> > +	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +	u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> > +			  PWM_CONTINUOUS;
> > +	u32 val;
> > +
> > +	val = readl(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> > +	if ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	state->enabled = true;
> > +
> > +	if (!(val & PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE))
> > +		state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> > +				   struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > +				   struct pwm_state *state)
> > +{
> > +	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +	unsigned long clk_rate;
> > +	u64 tmp;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pc->clk);
> > +
> > +	tmp = readl(pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
> > +	tmp *= pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC;
> > +	state->period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
> > +
> > +	tmp = readl(pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
> > +	tmp *= pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC;
> > +	state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
> > +
> > +	pc->data->get_state(chip, pwm, state);
> > +
> > +	clk_disable(pc->clk);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> >  			       int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> >  {
> > @@ -170,6 +232,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = {
> > +	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state,
> >  	.config = rockchip_pwm_config,
> >  	.enable = rockchip_pwm_enable,
> >  	.disable = rockchip_pwm_disable,
> > @@ -177,6 +240,7 @@ static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v1 = {
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> > +	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state,
> >  	.config = rockchip_pwm_config,
> >  	.set_polarity = rockchip_pwm_set_polarity,
> >  	.enable = rockchip_pwm_enable,
> > @@ -194,6 +258,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> >  	.prescaler = 2,
> >  	.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v1,
> >  	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> > +	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v1,
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> > @@ -206,6 +271,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> >  	.prescaler = 1,
> >  	.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2,
> >  	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> > +	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2,
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> > @@ -218,6 +284,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> >  	.prescaler = 1,
> >  	.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops_v2,
> >  	.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> > +	.get_state = rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2,
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> > -- 
> > 2.7.4
> >   



-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-04  6:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-03  8:22 [PATCH 00/14] regulator: pwm: various improvements Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:22 ` [PATCH 01/14] pwm: Add new helpers to create/manipulate PWM states Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 02/14] regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 11:08   ` Applied "regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call" to the regulator tree Mark Brown
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 03/14] pwm: rockchip: Fix period and duty_cycle approximation Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:03   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:19     ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-07 17:25       ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 04/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for hardware readout Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:07   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:20   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:24     ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2016-06-07 17:26       ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 05/14] pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:28   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:26     ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 06/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:37   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 07/14] pwm: sti: Add support for hardware readout Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 08/14] pwm: sti: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:38   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 09/14] regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:41   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 10/14] regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:50   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:28     ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-06  6:14       ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 11/14] regulator: pwm: properly initialize the ->state field Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:51   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 12/14] regulator: pwm: Retrieve correct voltage Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:55   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 13/14] regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 21:03   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:30     ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 14/14] regulator: pwm: Document pwm-dutycycle-unit and pwm-dutycycle-range Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 21:04   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-06 14:09   ` Rob Herring

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=20160604082426.493b220d@bbrezillon \
    --to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).