On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 04:30:11PM +0200, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> Add support for single PWM channel on Low-Power Timer, that can be
> found on some STM32 platforms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@xxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - s/Low Power/Low-Power
> - update few comment lines
> ---
> drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 10 +++
> drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c | 216 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 227 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> index 313c107..7cb982b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> @@ -417,6 +417,16 @@ config PWM_STM32
> To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> will be called pwm-stm32.
>
> +config PWM_STM32_LP
> + tristate "STMicroelectronics STM32 PWM LP"
> + depends on MFD_STM32_LPTIMER || COMPILE_TEST
> + help
> + Generic PWM framework driver for STMicroelectronics STM32 SoCs
> + with Low-Power Timer (LPTIM).
> +
> + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> + will be called pwm-stm32-lp.
> +
> config PWM_STMPE
> bool "STMPE expander PWM export"
> depends on MFD_STMPE
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> index 93da1f7..a3a4bee 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_SAMSUNG) += pwm-samsung.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_SPEAR) += pwm-spear.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_STI) += pwm-sti.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_STM32) += pwm-stm32.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_STM32_LP) += pwm-stm32-lp.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_STMPE) += pwm-stmpe.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_SUN4I) += pwm-sun4i.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_TEGRA) += pwm-tegra.o
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..eb997a8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
> +/*
> + * STM32 Low-Power Timer PWM driver
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics 2017
> + *
> + * Author: Gerald Baeza <gerald.baeza@xxxxxx>
> + *
> + * License terms: GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2
> + *
> + * Inspired by Gerald Baeza's pwm-stm32 driver
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/stm32-lptimer.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> +
> +struct stm32_pwm_lp {
> + struct pwm_chip chip;
> + struct clk *clk;
> + struct regmap *regmap;
> +};
> +
> +static inline struct stm32_pwm_lp *to_stm32_pwm_lp(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> +{
> + return container_of(chip, struct stm32_pwm_lp, chip);
> +}
> +
> +static const u8 prescalers[] = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128};
> +
> +static int stm32_pwm_lp_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct stm32_pwm_lp *priv = to_stm32_pwm_lp(chip);
> + unsigned long long prd, div, dty;
> + struct pwm_state cstate;
> + u32 val, mask, cfgr, wavpol, presc = 0;
> + bool reenable = false;
> + int ret;
> +
> + pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
> +
> + if (!state->enabled) {
> + if (cstate.enabled) {
> + /* Disable LP timer */
> + ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_CR, 0);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + clk_disable(priv->clk);
> + }
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + /* Calculate the period and prescaler value */
> + div = (unsigned long long)clk_get_rate(priv->clk) * state->period;
> + do_div(div, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> + prd = div;
> + while (div > STM32_LPTIM_MAX_ARR) {
> + presc++;
> + if (presc >= ARRAY_SIZE(prescalers)) {
> + dev_err(priv->chip.dev, "max prescaler exceeded\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + div = prd;
> + do_div(div, prescalers[presc]);
> + }
> + prd = div;
> +
> + /* Calculate the duty cycle */
> + dty = prd * state->duty_cycle;
> + do_div(dty, state->period);
> +
> + wavpol = FIELD_PREP(STM32_LPTIM_WAVPOL, state->polarity);
> +
> + if (!cstate.enabled) {
> + ret = clk_enable(priv->clk);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
Why do you need the checks here? Clock enabled are reference counted, so
you could do the clk_enable() unconditionally.
Speaking of which, I don't see a clk_prepare() anywhere. Doesn't the clk
core warn about clk_enable() being called on a clock that's not been
prepared?
> +
> + ret = regmap_read(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_CFGR, &cfgr);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> +
> + if ((wavpol != FIELD_GET(STM32_LPTIM_WAVPOL, cfgr)) ||
This looks wrong to me. Looking at the macro definitions, FIELD_PREP()
will store the shifted value in wavpol, but FIELD_GET() will shift the
value before returning, so you will compare an in-register value with
a field value. I don't see how those could ever match (unless they're
0 or the field is at position 0, which isn't the case for WAVPOL).
> + (presc != FIELD_GET(STM32_LPTIM_PRESC, cfgr))) {
> + val = FIELD_PREP(STM32_LPTIM_PRESC, presc) | wavpol;
> + mask = STM32_LPTIM_PRESC | STM32_LPTIM_WAVPOL;
> +
> + /* Must disable LP timer to modify CFGR */
> + ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_CR, 0);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> + reenable = true;
The placement of this is somewhat odd. It suggests that it is somehow
related to the disabling of the LP timer, whereas it really isn't.
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_CFGR, mask,
> + val);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + if (!cstate.enabled || reenable) {
You have this condition in a couple of places and it's rather difficult
to parse. Maybe this could be simplified a little:
bool reenable = !cstate.enabled;
...
if (...) {
...
reenable = true;
...
}
...
if (reenable) {
...
}
> + /* Must enable LP timer to modify CMP & ARR */
> + ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_CR,
> + STM32_LPTIM_ENABLE);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_ARR, prd - 1);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> +
> + ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_CMP, prd - (1 + dty));
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> +
> + /* ensure CMP & ARR registers are properly written */
> + ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_ISR, val,
> + (val & STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK),
> + 100, 1000);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(priv->chip.dev, "ARR/CMP registers write issue\n");
> + goto err;
> + }
> + ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_ICR,
> + STM32_LPTIM_CMPOKCF_ARROKCF);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> +
> + if (!cstate.enabled || reenable) {
> + /* Start LP timer in continuous mode */
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_CR,
> + STM32_LPTIM_CNTSTRT,
> + STM32_LPTIM_CNTSTRT);
> + if (ret) {
> + regmap_write(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_CR, 0);
> + goto err;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +err:
> + if (!cstate.enabled)
> + clk_disable(priv->clk);
I think you can drop the clk_disable() here as well.
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct pwm_ops stm32_pwm_lp_ops = {
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .apply = stm32_pwm_lp_apply,
> +};
You should implement the .get_state() callback as well, otherwise the
atomic PWM support will be somewhat handicapped.
> +
> +static int stm32_pwm_lp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct stm32_lptimer *ddata = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + struct stm32_pwm_lp *priv;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ddata))
> + return -EINVAL;
It seems to me like this can never happen. How would you trigger this
condition?
> +
> + priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!priv)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + priv->regmap = ddata->regmap;
> + priv->clk = ddata->clk;
> + if (!priv->regmap || !priv->clk)
> + return -EINVAL;
Likewise for these. the stm32-lptimer driver already checks that these
are valid, which do you need to do it again?
Well, technically you check for !NULL here, whereas stm32-lptimer does
check for IS_ERR(), but neither regmap nor clk looks as though they're
optional, and you won't ever get here if they can't be requested by
stm32-lptimer in the first place.
> +
> + priv->chip.base = -1;
> + priv->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> + priv->chip.ops = &stm32_pwm_lp_ops;
> + priv->chip.npwm = 1;
> +
> + ret = pwmchip_add(&priv->chip);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int stm32_pwm_lp_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct stm32_pwm_lp *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + if (pwm_is_enabled(priv->chip.pwms))
> + pwm_disable(priv->chip.pwms);
It'd be better to use the more idiomatic variant for this:
for (i = 0; i < priv->chip.npwm; i++)
if (pwm_is_enabled(priv->chip.npwm))
pwm_disable(&priv->chip.pwms[i]);
That makes it easier to discern the common pattern and extract a helper,
or move this to the core.
Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
