Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: make it possible to apply pwm changes in atomic context - Uwe Kleine-König

From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@microchip.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@foss.st.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: make it possible to apply pwm changes in atomic context
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:59:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231004095920.ne7yrrthow6tnuvg@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1bd5241d584ceb4d6b731c4dc3203fb9686ee1d1.1696156485.git.sean@mess.org>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2325 bytes --]

Hello Sean,

On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 11:40:29AM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> index dc66e3405bf5..d9679ae5b2be 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
>  	 * is a bad idea. So make it explicit that calling this function might
>  	 * sleep.
>  	 */
> -	might_sleep();
> +	might_sleep_if(pwm_can_sleep(pwm));
>  
>  	if (!pwm || !state || !state->period ||
>  	    state->duty_cycle > state->period)

I'd like to have a mechanism to catch drivers that missed to set
.can_sleep. The best idea I currently have for that is to disable
preemption if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM_DEBUG) && !pwm_can_sleep(pwm) while
.apply() is running.

> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c
> index b7c6045c5d08..b8b9392844e9 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c
> @@ -405,6 +405,7 @@ static int fsl_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	fpc->soc = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>  	fpc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	fpc->chip.can_sleep = true;

As .apply() being callable in non-sleepable context only depends on
.apply() I think a better place for this property is in struct pwm_ops.

Also I wonder if the distinction between atomic and sleeping
pwm_state_apply() should be more explicit. For GPIOs you have a sleeping
variant gpiod_set_value_cansleep() that allows to immediately determine
the intended context in the caller. This would allow that programming
a PWM stays a preemption point (if possible/desired) even if the
underlying hardware/driver is atomic. To not have to touch all consumer
drivers, maybe the pair for pwm should better be

	pwm_apply_state()
	pwm_apply_state_atomic()

instead of a "cansleep" suffix for the sleeping variant? Or maybe it's
better to accept touching all consumer drivers to get semantics similar
to gpio? I couldn't decide quickly what I really like better here, so
that's your chance to comment and influence the outcome :-)

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel