Hello Jonathan,
very nice driver, just a few minor comments below.
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 02:15:10AM +0100, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote:
> +static struct ntxec_pwm *pwmchip_to_priv(struct pwm_chip *chip)
a function prefix would be great here, I'd pick ntxec_pwm_from_chip as
name.
> +{
> + return container_of(chip, struct ntxec_pwm, chip);
> +}
> +
> +[...]
> +static int ntxec_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm_dev,
> + const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct ntxec_pwm *priv = pwmchip_to_priv(pwm_dev->chip);
> + unsigned int period, duty;
> + struct reg_sequence regs[] = {
> + { NTXEC_REG_PERIOD_HIGH },
> + { NTXEC_REG_PERIOD_LOW },
> + { NTXEC_REG_DUTY_HIGH },
> + { NTXEC_REG_DUTY_LOW }
> + };
> + int res;
> +
> + if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + period = min_t(u64, state->period, MAX_PERIOD_NS);
> + duty = min_t(u64, state->duty_cycle, period);
I'm not a big fan of aligning =. (As if you have to add a longer
variable you have to realign all otherwise unrelated lines.) But that's
subjective and it's up to you if you want to change this.
> + period /= TIME_BASE_NS;
> + duty /= TIME_BASE_NS;
> +
> + /*
> + * Changes to the period and duty cycle take effect as soon as the
> + * corresponding low byte is written, so the hardware may be configured
> + * to an inconsistent state after the period is written and before the
> + * duty cycle is fully written. If, in such a case, the old duty cycle
> + * is longer than the new period, the EC may output 100% for a moment.
> + */
> +
> + regs[0].def = ntxec_reg8(period >> 8);
> + regs[1].def = ntxec_reg8(period);
> + regs[2].def = ntxec_reg8(duty >> 8);
> + regs[3].def = ntxec_reg8(duty);
You could even minimize the window by changing the order here to
NTXEC_REG_PERIOD_HIGH
NTXEC_REG_DUTY_HIGH
NTXEC_REG_PERIOD_LOW
NTXEC_REG_DUTY_LOW
but it gets less readable. Maybe move that to a function to have the
reg_sequence and the actual write nearer together? Or somehow name the
indexes to make it more obvious?
> + res = regmap_multi_reg_write(priv->ec->regmap, regs, ARRAY_SIZE(regs));
> + if (res)
> + return res;
> +
> + /*
> + * Writing a duty cycle of zero puts the device into a state where
> + * writing a higher duty cycle doesn't result in the brightness that it
> + * usually results in. This can be fixed by cycling the ENABLE register.
> + *
> + * As a workaround, write ENABLE=0 when the duty cycle is zero.
If the device already has duty_cycle = 0 but ENABLE = 1, you might get
a failure. But I guess this doesn't need addressing in the code. But
maybe point it out in a comment?
> + */
> + if (state->enabled && duty != 0) {
> + res = regmap_write(priv->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_ENABLE, ntxec_reg8(1));
> + if (res)
> + return res;
> +
> + /* Disable the auto-off timer */
> + res = regmap_write(priv->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_AUTO_OFF_HI, ntxec_reg8(0xff));
> + if (res)
> + return res;
> +
> + return regmap_write(priv->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_AUTO_OFF_LO, ntxec_reg8(0xff));
Given that you cannot read back period and duty anyhow: Does it make
sense to write these only if (state->enabled && duty != 0)?
> + } else {
> + return regmap_write(priv->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_ENABLE, ntxec_reg8(0));
> + }
> +}
Thanks
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
