Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: mediatek: support inverted polarity

Uwe Kleine-König
2023-04-14T05:40:25Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3581 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 04:30:23PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 03:53:58PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Thierry,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 03:38:48PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:04:10AM +0100, Lorenz Brun wrote:
> > > > + * appear to have the capability to invert the output.
> > > > + * This means that inverted mode can not be fully supported as the
> > > > + * waveform will always start with the low period and end with the high
> > > > + * period. Thus reject non-normal polarity if the shape of the waveform
> > > > + * matters, i.e. usage_power is not set.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL && !state->usage_power)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > if (!state->enabled) {
> > > > @@ -213,7 +221,11 @@ static int pwm_mediatek_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - err = pwm_mediatek_config(pwm->chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
> > > > + duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
> > > > + if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> > > > + duty_cycle = state->period - state->duty_cycle;
> > >
> > > That's not really what state->usage_power was meant to address.
> >
> > I don't understand your concern here. I don't like .usage_power, but
> > AFAICT this is a legitimite use. With .usage_power = true, the lowlevel
> > driver is free to shift the phase_offset and even modify the period size
> > and the goal is just that the average power-output matches.
> >
> > Lorenz's patch does exactly this: It even keeps the period and only
> > shifts the phase (by period - duty_cycle). If you consider this not
> > legitmate, I think we have to improve the docs about .usage_power.
>
> I realize that I'm being nitpicky here. Setting usage_power = true and
> duty = period - duty is a lazy way of achieving what you can easily do
> by adjusting the input duty cycle.
>
> If you all really want this, then it should go into the core, because
> it's something that can be implemented on basically every single PWM
> controller.

You'd need something like:

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index e01147f66e15..6bb851c2e55e 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -556,6 +556,7 @@ static void pwm_apply_state_debug(struct pwm_device *pwm,
int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
{
struct pwm_chip *chip;
+ bool retry_inverted = true;
int err;

/*
@@ -580,10 +581,19 @@ int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
state->usage_power == pwm->state.usage_power)
return 0;

+retry:
err = chip->ops->apply(chip, pwm, state);
trace_pwm_apply(pwm, state, err);
- if (err)
+ if (err) {
+ if (err == -EINVAL && state->usage_power && retry_inverted) {
+ state->duty_cycle = state->period - state->duty_cycle;
+ state->polarity = 1 - state->polarity;
+ retry_inverted = false;
+ goto retry;
+ }
+
return err;
+ }

pwm->state = *state;

(Just to show the idea. It doesn't work like that, because *state is const.)

I don't like that .apply() is called twice and without having thought
much about it, I'd prefer explicit support in the lowlevel drivers over
this approach.

Best regards
Uwe

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]