Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] pwm: rockchip: Don't update the state for the caller of pwm_apply_state()

Uwe Kleine-König
2019-04-29T13:11:27Z

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 01:18:55PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 08:56:13AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 05:27:05PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if I'm misreading you, but I thought I'd add here before
> > > this expires out of my inbox:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:39 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > > <u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > My intention here is more to make all drivers behave the same way and
> > > > because only two drivers updated the pwm_state this was the variant I
> > > > removed.
> > >
> > > To be clear, this patch on its own is probably breaking things. Just
> > > because the other drivers don't implement the documented behavior
> > > doesn't mean you should break this driver. Maybe the others just
> > > aren't used in precise enough scenarios where this matters.
> > >
> > > > When you say that the caller might actually care about the exact
> > > > parameters I fully agree. In this case however the consumer should be
> > > > able to know the result before actually applying it. So if you do
> > > >
> > > > pwm_apply_state(pwm, { .period = 17, .duty_cycle = 12, ...})
> > > >
> > > > and this results in .period = 100 and .duty_cycle = 0 then probably the
> > > > bad things you want to know about already happend. So my idea is a new
> > > > function pwm_round_state() that does the adaptions to pwm_state without
> > > > applying it to the hardware. After that pwm_apply_state could do the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > rstate = pwm_round_state(pwm, state)
> > > > pwm.apply(pwm, state)
> > > > gstate = pwm_get_state(pwm)
> > > >
> > > > if rstate != gstate:
> > > > warn about problems
> > >
> > > For our case (we're using this with pwm-regulator), I don't recall [*]
> > > we need to be 100% precise about the period, but we do need to be as
> > > precise as possible with the duty:period ratio -- so once we get the
> > > "feedback" from the underlying PWM driver what the real period will
> > > be, we adjust the duty appropriately.
> >
> > I admit that I didn't understood the whole situation and (some) things
> > are worse with my patches applied. I still think that changing the
> > caller's state variable is bad design, but of course pwm_get_state
> > should return the currently implemented configuration.
> >
> > > So I don't see that "warning" would really help for this particular case.
> > >
> > > > But before doing that I think it would be sensible to also fix the rules
> > > > how the round_state callback is supposed to round.
> > >
> > > I'm not quite sure I grok exactly what you're planning, but I would
> > > much appreciate if you didn't break things on the way toward fixing
> > > them ;)
> >
> > There are currently no rules how the driver should behave for example if
> > the consumer requests
> >
> > .duty_cycle = 10, .period = 50
> >
> > and the hardware can only implement multiples of 3 for both values. The
> > obvious candidates are:
> >
> > - .duty_cycle = 9, .period = 51 (round nearest for both)
> > - .duty_cycle = 12, .period = 51 (round up)
> > - .duty_cycle = 9, .period = 48 (round down)
> > - .duty_cycle = 9, .period = 45 (round duty_cycle and keep proportion)
> > - return error (which code?)
> >
> > And there are some other variants (e.g. round duty_cycle to nearest and
> > period in the same direction) that might be sensible.
>
> The problem is that probably all of the above are valid, though maybe
> not for all cases. The choice of algorithm probably depends on both the
> PWM driver and the consumer, so I don't think fixing things to one such
> algorithm is going to improve anything.

But if you have pwm_round_state (which implements rounding down for
example) you could easily implement a helper that rounds nearest or up.
If however each driver rounds the way it prefers coming up with a helper
for rounding up is considerably harder.

> > Also it should be possible to know the result before actually
> > configuring the hardware. Otherwise things might already go wrong
> > because the driver implements a setting that is too far from the
> > requested configuration.
>
> I agree.
>
> Perhaps somebody with more experience with pwm-regulator can chime in
> here, but it sounds to me like if you really want to accurately output a
> voltage, you may want to hand-tune the duty-cycle/period pairs that are
> used for pwm-regulator.

This might be more ugly than needed because then you have to setup the
table in dependance of the used PWM. Looking at the pwm-regulator code I
think the binding is badly worded. The "Duty-Cycle" parameter is used as
second parameter to pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle (with scale = 100). So
with the regulator defined in the Voltage Table Example of
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/pwm-regulator.txt you'd have
to configure

.duty_cycle = 2534, .period = 8448

to get 1.056 V.

Note that my considerations are not only about pwm-regulators.

Also in general I prefer a suitable and well reviewed algorithm (if
possible) over a requirement to provide a hand-tuned table of values in
a machine-specific device tree.

> According to the device tree bindings there's
> already support for a voltage table mode where an exact duty-cycle to
> output voltage correspondence is defined. This is as opposed to the
> continuous voltage mode where the duty cycle is linearly interpolated
> based on the requested output voltage.
>
> pwm-regulator in voltage table mode could run in "strict" mode with zero
> deviation allowed, on the assumption that duty-cycle values were hand-
> picked to give the desired results. For continuous voltage mode it
> probably doesn't matter all that much, since very exact results can't be
> guaranteed anyway.

I don't understand the last sentence? Why is it impossible to get exact
results in continuous voltage mode?

Best regards
Uwe

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