On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:20:26AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.
Good point, will do.
>
> > +{
> > + 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.
In this case, I thought it helps the readability, because the lines are
quite similar.
> > + period /= TIME_BASE_NS;
> > + duty /= TIME_BASE_NS;
Here, I did it because I had already aligned the previous two lines.
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * 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
Good idea, but I'm not sure if the EC handles this kind of interleaving
correctly.
> but it gets less readable. Maybe move that to a function to have the
> reg_sequence and the actual write nearer together?
Indeed, a separate function would keep register names and values
together (without resorting to declarations-after-statements).
> Or somehow name the indexes to make it more obvious?
Too much unnecessary complexity, IMHO.
> > + 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?
Good point. I'll add something to the 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)?
I think it does.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
