Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2

Stefan Agner
2016-11-23T19:39:53Z

On 2016-11-23 00:38, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:33 -0800
> Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-11-01 00:10, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> > This commit provides apply() callback implementation for i.MX's PWMv2.
>> >
>> > Suggested-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
>> > Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl>
>> > Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
>> > ---
>> > Changes for v3:
>> > - Remove ipg clock enable/disable functions
>> >
>> > Changes for v2:
>> > - None
>> > ---
>> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>> > index ebe9b0c..cd53c05 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>> > @@ -159,6 +159,75 @@ static void imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > +static int imx_pwm_apply_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> > + struct pwm_state *state)
>> > +{
>> > + unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
>> > + struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
>> > + struct pwm_state cstate;
>> > + unsigned long long c;
>> > + u32 cr = 0;
>> > + int ret;
>> > +
>> > + pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
>> > +
>>
>> Couldn't we do:
>>
>> if (cstate.enabled) { ...
>>
>> > + c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
>> > + c *= state->period;
>> > +
>> > + do_div(c, 1000000000);
>> > + period_cycles = c;
>> > +
>> > + prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
>> > +
>> > + period_cycles /= prescale;
>> > + c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles * state->duty_cycle;
>> > + do_div(c, state->period);
>> > + duty_cycles = c;
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * according to imx pwm RM, the real period value should be
>> > + * PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
>> > + */
>> > + if (period_cycles > 2)
>> > + period_cycles -= 2;
>> > + else
>> > + period_cycles = 0;
>> > +
>> > + /* Enable the clock if the PWM is being enabled. */
>> > + if (state->enabled && !cstate.enabled) {
>> > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
>> > + if (ret)
>> > + return ret;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already enabled, and flush
>> > + * the FIFO if the PWM was disabled and is about to be enabled.
>> > + */
>> > + if (cstate.enabled)
>> > + imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
>> > + else if (state->enabled)
>> > + imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
>> > +
>> > + writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
>> > + writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
>> > +
>> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
>> > + MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
>> > + MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH;
>> > +
>> > + if (state->enabled)
>> > + cr |= MX3_PWMCR_EN;
>>
>> } else if (state->enabled) {
>> imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
>> }
>>
>> and get rid of the if (state->enabled) in between? This would safe us
>> useless recalculation when disabling the controller...
>
> I get your point, but I'm pretty sure your proposal does not do what
> you want (remember that cstate is the current state, and state is the
> new state to apply).
>
> Something like that would work better:
>
> if (state->enabled) {

Oops, yes, got that wrong. state->enabled is what I meant.

> c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> c *= state->period;
>
> do_div(c, 1000000000);
> period_cycles = c;
>
> prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
>
> period_cycles /= prescale;
> c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles *
> state->duty_cycle;
> do_div(c, state->period);
> duty_cycles = c;
>
> /*
> * According to imx pwm RM, the real period value
> * should be PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2.
> */
> if (period_cycles > 2)
> period_cycles -= 2;
> else
> period_cycles = 0;
>
> /*
> * Enable the clock if the PWM is not already
> * enabled.
> */
> if (!cstate.enabled) {
> ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> }
>
> /*
> * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already
> * enabled, and flush the FIFO if the PWM was disabled
> * and is about to be enabled.
> */
> if (cstate.enabled)
> imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm);
> else
> imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip);
>
> writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
>
> writel(MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) |
> MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH |
> MX3_PWMCR_EN,
> imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
> } else {
>
> writel(0, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
>
> /* Disable the clock if the PWM is currently enabled. */
> if (cstate.enabled)
> clk_disable_unprepare(imx->clk_per);
> }
>
>
> This being said, I'm a bit concerned by the way this driver handles PWM
> config requests.
> It seems that the new config request is queued, and nothing guarantees

Not sure if that is true. The RM says: "A change in the period value due
to a write in PWM_PWMPR results in the counter being reset to zero and
the start of a new count period."

And for PWMSAR: "When a new value is written, the duty cycle changes
after the current period is over."

So I guess writing the period basically makes sure the next value from
PWMSAR will be active immediately...

> that it is actually applied when the pwm_apply/config/enable/disable()
> functions return.

Given that the driver did it like that since quite some time, I am
assuming it mostly works in practice.

I would rather prefer to do that conversion to atomic PWM API now, and
fix that in a second step...

>
> This approach has several flaws IMO:
>
> 1/ I'm not sure this is what the PWM users expect. Getting your request
> queued with no guarantees that it is applied can be weird in some
> cases (especially when the user changes the PWM config several times
> in a short period of time).
> 2/ In the disable path, you queue a "stop PWM" request, but you're not
> sure that it's actually dequeued before the per clk is disabled.
> What happens in that case? And more importantly, what happens when
> the PWM is re-enabled to apply a new config? AFAICS, there might be
> a short period of time where the re-enabled PWM is actually running
> with the old config until we flush the command queue and queue a new
> command.
> 3/ The queueing approach complicates the whole logic. You have to
> flush the FIFO in some cases, or wait for an empty slots if too many
> commands are queued.
> Forcing imx_pwm_apply_v2() to wait for the config request to be
> applied should simplify the whole thing, because you will always be
> guaranteed that the FIFO is empty, and that the current
> configuration is the last requested one.
>

--
Stefan