From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v1 4/4] pwm: lpss: Switch to new atomic API
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:43:25 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161024144325.130353-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161024144325.130353-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Instead of doing things separately, which is not so reliable on some platforms,
switch the driver to use new atomic API, i.e. ->apply() callback.
The change has been tested on Intel platforms such as Broxton, BayTrail, and
Merrifield.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index e7d612e..7d3ac82 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -85,15 +85,20 @@ static inline void pwm_lpss_write(const struct pwm_device *pwm, u32 value)
static void pwm_lpss_update(struct pwm_device *pwm)
{
+ /*
+ * Set a limit for busyloop since not all implementations correctly
+ * clear PWM_SW_UPDATE bit (at least it's not visible on OS side).
+ */
+ unsigned int count = 10;
+
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_SW_UPDATE);
- /* Give it some time to propagate */
- usleep_range(10, 50);
+ while (pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & PWM_SW_UPDATE && --count)
+ usleep_range(10, 20);
}
-static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
int duty_ns, int period_ns)
{
- struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
unsigned long long on_time_div;
unsigned long c = lpwm->info->clk_rate, base_unit_range;
unsigned long long base_unit, freq = NSEC_PER_SEC;
@@ -114,8 +119,6 @@ static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
do_div(on_time_div, period_ns);
on_time_div = 255ULL - on_time_div;
- pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
-
ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm);
ctrl &= ~PWM_ON_TIME_DIV_MASK;
ctrl &= ~(base_unit_range << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT);
@@ -124,41 +127,43 @@ static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
ctrl |= on_time_div;
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, ctrl);
- /*
- * If the PWM is already enabled we need to notify the hardware
- * about the change by setting PWM_SW_UPDATE.
- */
- if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
- pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
-
- pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
-
+ pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
return 0;
}
-static int pwm_lpss_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
+static void pwm_lpss_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
{
- pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
-
- /*
- * Hardware must first see PWM_SW_UPDATE before the PWM can be
- * enabled.
- */
- pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_ENABLE);
- return 0;
}
-static void pwm_lpss_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
+static void pwm_lpss_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
{
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
- pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+}
+
+static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+ struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
+
+ if (state->enabled) {
+ if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
+ pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
+ pwm_lpss_config(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
+ pwm_lpss_enable(pwm);
+ } else {
+ pwm_lpss_config(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
+ }
+ } else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
+ pwm_lpss_disable(pwm);
+ pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
}
static const struct pwm_ops pwm_lpss_ops = {
- .config = pwm_lpss_config,
- .enable = pwm_lpss_enable,
- .disable = pwm_lpss_disable,
+ .apply = pwm_lpss_apply,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};
--
2.9.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-24 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-24 14:43 [PATCH v1 0/4] pwm: lpss: clean up series Andy Shevchenko
2016-10-24 14:43 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] pwm: lpss: Avoid potential overflow of base_unit Andy Shevchenko
2016-10-25 9:33 ` Mika Westerberg
2016-10-24 14:43 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] pwm: lpss: Allow duty cycle to be 0 Andy Shevchenko
2016-10-25 9:38 ` Mika Westerberg
2016-10-24 14:43 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] pwm: lpss: Do not export board infos for different PWM types Andy Shevchenko
2016-10-24 14:43 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2016-10-25 9:39 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] pwm: lpss: Switch to new atomic API Mika Westerberg
2016-11-14 10:32 ` [PATCH v1 0/4] pwm: lpss: clean up series Andy Shevchenko
2016-12-14 16:41 ` Andy Shevchenko
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=20161024144325.130353-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).