Re: [PATCH] pwm: imx: don't reprogram PWMSAR if PWM is disabled

[Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@freescale.com>]

On 08/05/2014 09:36 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:02:17PM +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
>> <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry_eremin@mentor.com>
>>>
>>> Writing several values to PWMSAR register with PWM being disabled can
>>> lead to FIFO (connected to PWMSAR) being overflown. Then after enabling
>>> PWM, hardware will use stale values. Instead cache the duty cycles and
>>> write them to the hardware only before enabling PWM.
>>
>> What about this patch?
>
> Copy Liu Ying who seems to have a patch [1] addressing the same problem?
>

Yes, my patch may address the same problem. And, my patch may cache the 
last duty cycle as well when the PWM is disabled. The difference is that 
my patch caches it in the register PWMSAR instead of a variable.

Regards,

Liu Ying

> Shawn
>
> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.pwm/837/focus=836
>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry_eremin@mentor.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>>> index c735127..79c2b24 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>>> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ struct imx_chip {
>>>          struct clk      *clk_ipg;
>>>
>>>          void __iomem    *mmio_base;
>>> +       unsigned long   duty_cycles;
>>>
>>>          struct pwm_chip chip;
>>>
>>> @@ -105,7 +106,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_config_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>>>   {
>>>          struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
>>>          unsigned long long c;
>>> -       unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
>>> +       unsigned long period_cycles, prescale;
>>>          u32 cr;
>>>
>>>          c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
>>> @@ -118,7 +119,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_config_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>>>          period_cycles /= prescale;
>>>          c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles * duty_ns;
>>>          do_div(c, period_ns);
>>> -       duty_cycles = c;
>>> +       imx->duty_cycles = c;
>>>
>>>          /*
>>>           * according to imx pwm RM, the real period value should be
>>> @@ -134,7 +135,8 @@ static int imx_pwm_config_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>>>
>>>          period_cycles -= 2;
>>>
>>> -       writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
>>> +       if (test_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, &pwm->flags))
>>> +               writel(imx->duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
>>>          writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
>>>
>>>          cr = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
>>> @@ -157,6 +159,9 @@ static void imx_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
>>>          struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
>>>          u32 val;
>>>
>>> +       if (enable)
>>> +               writel(imx->duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
>>> +
>>>          val = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
>>>
>>>          if (enable)
>>> --
>>> 1.9.3
>>>