From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: add at91sam9x5 and sama5d3 errata handling
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:00:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141118150016.GB18586@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1416314453-28597-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4015 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:40:53PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> at91sam9x5 has an errata forbidding the use of slow clk as a clk source and
> sama5d3 SoCs has another errata forbidding the use of div1 prescaler.
>
> Take both of these erratas into account.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
> index eaf8b12..405f8a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
> @@ -36,6 +36,8 @@ struct atmel_hlcdc_pwm {
> struct pwm_chip chip;
> struct atmel_hlcdc *hlcdc;
> struct clk *cur_clk;
> + bool slow_clk_errata;
> + bool div1_clk_errata;
> };
>
> static inline struct atmel_hlcdc_pwm *to_atmel_hlcdc_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> @@ -56,20 +58,28 @@ static int atmel_hlcdc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c,
> u32 pwmcfg;
> int pres;
>
> - clk_freq = clk_get_rate(new_clk);
> - clk_period_ns = (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 256;
> - do_div(clk_period_ns, clk_freq);
> + if (!chip->slow_clk_errata) {
> + clk_freq = clk_get_rate(new_clk);
> + clk_period_ns = (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 256;
> + do_div(clk_period_ns, clk_freq);
> + }
>
> - if (clk_period_ns > period_ns) {
> + /* Errata: cannot use slow clk on some IP revisions */
> + if (chip->slow_clk_errata || clk_period_ns > period_ns) {
> new_clk = hlcdc->sys_clk;
> clk_freq = clk_get_rate(new_clk);
> clk_period_ns = (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 256;
> do_div(clk_period_ns, clk_freq);
> }
>
> - for (pres = 0; pres <= ATMEL_HLCDC_PWMPS_MAX; pres++)
> + for (pres = 0; pres <= ATMEL_HLCDC_PWMPS_MAX; pres++) {
> + /* Errata: cannot divide by 1 on some IP revisions */
> + if (!pres && chip->div1_clk_errata)
> + continue;
> +
> if ((clk_period_ns << pres) >= period_ns)
> break;
> + }
>
> if (pres > ATMEL_HLCDC_PWMPS_MAX)
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -204,6 +214,14 @@ static int atmel_hlcdc_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->parent->of_node,
> + "atmel,sama5d3-hlcdc"))
> + chip->div1_clk_errata = true;
> +
> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->parent->of_node,
> + "atmel,at91sam9x5-hlcdc"))
> + chip->slow_clk_errata = true;
Generally I'd prefer this to be done as "SoC data", where the idea is to
not rely on these checks at probe time (because they don't scale very
well in the long term). Somewhat like the following:
struct atmel_hlcdc_soc {
bool slow_clk_errata;
bool div1_clk_errata;
};
static const struct atmel_hlcdc_soc sama5d3_hlcdc = {
.slow_clk_errata = false,
.div1_clk_errata = true,
};
static const struct atmel_hlcdc_soc at91sam9x5_hlcdc = {
.slow_clk_errata = true,
.div1_clk_errata = false,
};
Then put those into a struct of_device_id table and do the matching
using of_match_device(). Then you can simply do something like:
match = of_match_device(dev->parent, atmel_hlcdc_matches);
if (match)
chip->soc = match->data;
And then check on the fields set therein. This works optimally if the
device isn't a subdevice because you have most of that code anyway. In
this particular case the lookup needs to happen on the parent, which
isn't so nice.
I'm willing to let this go for now, but if this list is going to grow
I'll request that it be done differently so that .probe() doesn't need
to be cluttered.
Also I wonder if it would be better to just add these new compatibles to
the PWM block binding, too, since it's obviously the IP blocks that have
these errata rather than the HLCDC block. So technically I think you'd
have to make the driver support atmel,at91sam9x5-hlcdc-pwm and
atmel,sama5d3-hlcdc-pwm anyway, and then you could just as well move to
the above matching and SoC data.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-18 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-18 12:40 [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: add at91sam9x5 and sama5d3 errata handling Boris Brezillon
2014-11-18 14:35 ` Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-18 15:00 ` Thierry Reding [this message]
2014-11-18 15:53 ` Boris Brezillon
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=20141118150016.GB18586@ulmo \
--to=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@maxim.org.za \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox