Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

[Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:00:32PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:55:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> > > > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k)
> > > > and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform
> > > > (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call
> > > > regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) is in reality equivalent to
> > > > regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 0).
> > > > 
> > > > In such a case, the correct use is regmap_update_bits(..., mask, mask).
> > > > 
> > > > This driver is performing such a mistake with the MODE1_RESTART mask,
> > > > which equals (1 << 6). Fix the driver to make it consistent with the
> > > > API. Please note that this change is untested, as I do not have this
> > > > piece of hardware. Testers are welcome!
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@heig-vd.ch>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 3 ++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> > > > index 117fccf..6b9ff6c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> > > > @@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > >  			 */
> > > >  			if (duty_ns == pca->duty_ns) {
> > > >  				regmap_update_bits(pca->regmap, PCA9685_MODE1,
> > > > -						   MODE1_RESTART, 0x1);
> > > > +						   MODE1_RESTART,
> > > > +						   MODE1_RESTART);
> > > >  				return 0;
> > > >  			}
> > > >  		} else {
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.5.5
> > > 
> > > Good catch!
> > > During testing your change however, I noticed that this whole
> > > conditional for duty_ns == pca->duty_ns (which I added) is bogus:
> > > Restarting the chip means using the same ON and OFF times as before, so
> > > the duty cycle "ratio" stays the same, relative to the period.
> > > Here we are checking for an equal duty cycle in nanoseconds though..
> > > 
> > > Instead we would have to check if the ratio changed and only if it did
> > > not, set the RESTART bit.
> > > 
> > > Or we could just remove that conditional. This is only an optimization
> > > for the special case of changing both period_ns and duty_ns at the same
> > > time but with the same ratio as before.
> > 
> > So what's the status on this?
> 
> Oh wait, that's what these:
> 
> 	http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/705438/
> 	http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/705437/
> 
> are fixing, right?

Yes, this is what the first patch of the series is fixing.

The second one corrects the invalid expectation that the period is
always set to 1/200 Hz after boot.

Thanks,
Clemens