Hello Baruch,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 03:03:08PM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 06:27:17PM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote:
> >> From: Baruch Siach <baruch.siach@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Driver for the PWM block in Qualcomm IPQ6018 line of SoCs. Based on
> >> driver from downstream Codeaurora kernel tree. Removed support for older
> >> (V1) variants because I have no access to that hardware.
> >>
> >> Tested on IPQ6010 based hardware.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch.siach@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> v10:
> >>
> >> Restore round up in pwm_div calculation; otherwise diff is always <=
> >> 0, so only bingo match works
> >>
> >> Don't overwrite min_diff on every loop iteration
> >>
> >> v9:
> >>
> >> Address comment from Uwe Kleine-König:
> >>
> >> Use period_ns*rate in dividers calculation for better accuracy
> >>
> >> Round down pre_div and pwm_div
> >>
> >> Add a comment explaining why pwm_div can't underflow
> >>
> >> Add a comment explaining why pre_div > pwm_div end the search loop
> >>
> >> Drop 'CFG_' from register macros
> >>
> >> Rename to_ipq_pwm_chip() to ipq_pwm_from_chip()
> >>
> >> Change bare 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int'
> >>
> >> Clarify the comment on separate REG1 write for enable/disable
> >>
> >> Round up the period value in .get_state
> >>
> >> Use direct readl/writel so no need to check for regmap errors
> >>
> >> v7:
> >>
> >> Change 'offset' to 'reg' for the tcsr offset (Rob)
> >>
> >> Drop clock name; there is only one clock (Bjorn)
> >>
> >> Simplify probe failure code path (Bjorn)
> >>
> >> v6:
> >>
> >> Address Uwe Kleine-König review comments:
> >>
> >> Drop IPQ_PWM_MAX_DEVICES
> >>
> >> Rely on assigned-clock-rates; drop IPQ_PWM_CLK_SRC_FREQ
> >>
> >> Simplify register offset calculation
> >>
> >> Calculate duty cycle more precisely
> >>
> >> Refuse to set inverted polarity
> >>
> >> Drop redundant IPQ_PWM_REG1_ENABLE bit clear
> >>
> >> Remove x1000 factor in pwm_div calculation, use rate directly, and round up
> >>
> >> Choose initial pre_div such that pwm_div < IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV
> >>
> >> Ensure pre_div <= pwm_div
> >>
> >> Rename close_ to best_
> >>
> >> Explain in comment why effective_div doesn't overflow
> >>
> >> Limit pwm_div to IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV - 1 to allow 100% duty cycle
> >>
> >> Disable clock only after pwmchip_remove()
> >>
> >> const pwm_ops
> >>
> >> Other changes:
> >>
> >> Add missing linux/bitfield.h header include (kernel test robot)
> >>
> >> Adjust code for PWM device node under TCSR (Rob Herring)
> >>
> >> v5:
> >>
> >> Use &tcsr_q6 syscon to access registers (Bjorn Andersson)
> >>
> >> Address Uwe Kleine-König review comments:
> >>
> >> Implement .get_state()
> >>
> >> Add IPQ_PWM_ prefix to local macros
> >>
> >> Use GENMASK/BIT/FIELD_PREP for register fields access
> >>
> >> Make type of config_div_and_duty() parameters consistent
> >>
> >> Derive IPQ_PWM_MIN_PERIOD_NS from IPQ_PWM_CLK_SRC_FREQ
> >>
> >> Integrate enable/disable into config_div_and_duty() to save register read,
> >> and reduce frequency glitch on update
> >>
> >> Use min() instead of min_t()
> >>
> >> Fix comment format
> >>
> >> Use dev_err_probe() to indicate probe step failure
> >>
> >> Add missing clk_disable_unprepare() in .remove
> >>
> >> Don't set .owner
> >>
> >> v4:
> >>
> >> Use div64_u64() to fix link for 32-bit targets ((kernel test robot
> >> <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>, Uwe Kleine-König)
> >>
> >> v3:
> >>
> >> s/qcom,pwm-ipq6018/qcom,ipq6018-pwm/ (Rob Herring)
> >>
> >> Fix integer overflow on 32-bit targets (kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>)
> >>
> >> v2:
> >>
> >> Address Uwe Kleine-König review comments:
> >>
> >> Fix period calculation when out of range
> >>
> >> Don't set period larger than requested
> >>
> >> Remove PWM disable on configuration change
> >>
> >> Implement .apply instead of non-atomic .config/.enable/.disable
> >>
> >> Don't modify PWM on .request/.free
> >>
> >> Check pwm_div underflow
> >>
> >> Fix various code and comment formatting issues
> >>
> >> Other changes:
> >>
> >> Use u64 divisor safe division
> >>
> >> Remove now empty .request/.free
> >> ---
> >> drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 12 ++
> >> drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 +
> >> drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c | 275 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 3 files changed, 288 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> >> index 21e3b05a5153..e39718137ecd 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> >> @@ -260,6 +260,18 @@ config PWM_INTEL_LGM
> >> To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> >> will be called pwm-intel-lgm.
> >>
> >> +config PWM_IPQ
> >> + tristate "IPQ PWM support"
> >> + depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST
> >> + depends on HAVE_CLK && HAS_IOMEM
> >> + help
> >> + Generic PWM framework driver for IPQ PWM block which supports
> >> + 4 pwm channels. Each of the these channels can be configured
> >> + independent of each other.
> >> +
> >> + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> >> + will be called pwm-ipq.
> >> +
> >> config PWM_IQS620A
> >> tristate "Azoteq IQS620A PWM support"
> >> depends on MFD_IQS62X || COMPILE_TEST
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> >> index 708840b7fba8..7402feae4b36 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX1) += pwm-imx1.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX27) += pwm-imx27.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX_TPM) += pwm-imx-tpm.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_INTEL_LGM) += pwm-intel-lgm.o
> >> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IPQ) += pwm-ipq.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IQS620A) += pwm-iqs620a.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_JZ4740) += pwm-jz4740.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_KEEMBAY) += pwm-keembay.o
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..3764010808f0
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0
> >> +/*
> >> + * Copyright (c) 2016-2017, 2020 The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/module.h>
> >> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> >> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> >> +#include <linux/io.h>
> >> +#include <linux/of.h>
> >> +#include <linux/math64.h>
> >> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> >> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> >> +
> >> +/* The frequency range supported is 1 Hz to clock rate */
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS ((u64)NSEC_PER_SEC)
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * The max value specified for each field is based on the number of bits
> >> + * in the pwm control register for that field
> >> + */
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV 0xFFFF
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Two 32-bit registers for each PWM: REG0, and REG1.
> >> + * Base offset for PWM #i is at 8 * #i.
> >> + */
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG0 0 /*PWM_DIV PWM_HI*/
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG0_PWM_DIV GENMASK(15, 0)
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG0_HI_DURATION GENMASK(31, 16)
> >
> > PWM_HI in the comment of IPQ_PWM_REG0 vs. HI_DURATION? Should this
> > match? I'd say the comment is redundant.
> >
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG1 4 /*ENABLE UPDATE PWM_PRE_DIV*/
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG1_PRE_DIV GENMASK(15, 0)
> >> +/*
> >> + * Enable bit is set to enable output toggling in pwm device.
> >> + * Update bit is set to reflect the changed divider and high duration
> >> + * values in register.
> >> + */
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG1_UPDATE BIT(30)
> >> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG1_ENABLE BIT(31)
> >> +
> >> +
> >> +struct ipq_pwm_chip {
> >> + struct pwm_chip chip;
> >> + struct clk *clk;
> >> + void __iomem *mem;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_pwm_from_chip(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> >> +{
> >> + return container_of(chip, struct ipq_pwm_chip, chip);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static unsigned int ipq_pwm_reg_read(struct pwm_device *pwm, unsigned int reg)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_chip = ipq_pwm_from_chip(pwm->chip);
> >> + unsigned int off = 8 * pwm->hwpwm + reg;
> >> +
> >> + return readl(ipq_chip->mem + off);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void ipq_pwm_reg_write(struct pwm_device *pwm, unsigned int reg,
> >> + unsigned int val)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_chip = ipq_pwm_from_chip(pwm->chip);
> >> + unsigned int off = 8 * pwm->hwpwm + reg;
> >> +
> >> + writel(val, ipq_chip->mem + off);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void config_div_and_duty(struct pwm_device *pwm, unsigned int pre_div,
> >> + unsigned int pwm_div, unsigned long rate, u64 duty_ns,
> >> + bool enable)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned long hi_dur;
> >> + unsigned long val = 0;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * high duration = pwm duty * (pwm div + 1)
> >> + * pwm duty = duty_ns / period_ns
> >> + */
> >> + hi_dur = div64_u64(duty_ns * rate, (pre_div + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >> +
> >> + val = FIELD_PREP(IPQ_PWM_REG0_HI_DURATION, hi_dur) |
> >> + FIELD_PREP(IPQ_PWM_REG0_PWM_DIV, pwm_div);
> >> + ipq_pwm_reg_write(pwm, IPQ_PWM_REG0, val);
> >> +
> >> + val = FIELD_PREP(IPQ_PWM_REG1_PRE_DIV, pre_div);
> >> + ipq_pwm_reg_write(pwm, IPQ_PWM_REG1, val);
> >> +
> >> + /* PWM enable toggle needs a separate write to REG1 */
> >> + val |= IPQ_PWM_REG1_UPDATE;
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= IPQ_PWM_REG1_ENABLE;
> >> + ipq_pwm_reg_write(pwm, IPQ_PWM_REG1, val);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int ipq_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> >> + const struct pwm_state *state)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_chip = ipq_pwm_from_chip(chip);
> >> + unsigned int pre_div, pwm_div, best_pre_div, best_pwm_div;
> >> + unsigned long rate = clk_get_rate(ipq_chip->clk);
> >> + u64 period_ns, duty_ns, period_rate;
> >> + u64 min_diff;
> >> +
> >> + if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + if (state->period < div64_u64(NSEC_PER_SEC, rate))
> >> + return -ERANGE;
> >
> > NSEC_PER_SEC / rate is the smallest period you can achieve, right?
> > Consider rate = 33333 (Hz), then the minimal period is
> > 30000.30000300003 ns. So you should refuse a request to configure
> > state->period = 30000, but as div64_u64(1000000000, 33333) is 30000 you
> > don't.
> >
> >> + period_ns = min(state->period, IPQ_PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS);
> >> + duty_ns = min(state->duty_cycle, period_ns);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * period_ns is 1G or less. As long as rate is less than 16 GHz this
> >> + * does not overflow.
> >
> > Well, rate cannot be bigger than 4294967295 because an unsigned long
> > cannot hold a bigger value.
>
> On 64-bit systems __SIZEOF_LONG__ is 8, which can hold more than 2^32.
Ah right, then I suggest to check that in code to make it more explicit
than in a comment.
> >> + */
> >> + period_rate = period_ns * rate;
> >> + best_pre_div = IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV;
> >> + best_pwm_div = IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV;
> >> + /* Initial pre_div value such that pwm_div < IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV */
>
> Note this comment.
<= ?
>
> >> + pre_div = div64_u64(period_rate,
> >> + (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * (IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV + 1));
> >
> > Hmmm, we want
> >
> > (pre_div + 1) * (pwm_div + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC
> > -------------------------------------------- <= period_ns
> > rate
> >
> > , right? Resolving that for pre_div this gives:
> >
> > period_ns * rate
> > pre_div <= ----------------------------
> > NSEC_PER_SEC * (pwm_div + 1)
> >
> > The term on the right hand side is maximal for pwm_div == 0 so the
> > possible values for pre_div are
> >
> > 0 ... min(div64_u64(period_rate / NSEC_PER_SEC), IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV)
> >
> > isn't it?
>
> I don't think so. pre_div == 0 will produce pwm_div larger than
> IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV for a large period_rate value. The initial pre_div here is the
> smallest value that produces pwm_div within it limit.
Ah, got your reasoning. If a pre_div is picked that is smaller than the
value you calculate, a bigger pre_div results in a better approximation.
What strikes me is that if you pick a smaller pre_div, you can still use
pwm_div = IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV which yields an allowed setting. So while your
argument is right, I'd need a better comment to actually understand it.
Something like:
/*
* We don't need to consider pre_div values smaller than
*
* period_rate
* pre_div_min := ------------------------------------
* NSEC_PER_SEC * (IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV + 1)
*
* because pre_div = pre_div_min results in a better
* approximation.
*/
> > If so, your algorithm is wrong as you're iterating over
> >
> > div64_u64(period_rate, NSEC_PER_SEC * (IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV + 1)) ... IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV
>
> The loop stops when pre_div > pwm_div. That should be before pre_div ==
> IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV because pwm_div <= IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV. Should I put the pre_div >
> pwm_div condition directly in the for statement?
OK, moving the check isn't necessary.
> > The task here is to calculate the biggest pwm_div for a given pre_div
> > such that
> >
> >
> > (pre_div + 1) * (pwm_div + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC
> > -------------------------------------------- <= period_ns
> > rate
> >
> > right?
> >
> > This is equivalent to:
> >
> > period_ns * rate
> > pre_div <= ---------------------------- - 1
> > (pre_div + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC
> >
> > As pre_div is integer, rounding down should be fine?!
>
> I can't follow. With round down (as in v8) the result is always:
>
> NSEC_PER_SEC * (pre_div + 1) * (pwm_div + 1) <= period_rate
Yes, that's the condition that a valid configuration should fulfill
because then the configured period is never bigger than the requested
period.
> As a result, 'diff' calculation below will always produce diff <= 0. When
> there is no diff == 0 result (bingo) we get IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV in both best_
> values at the end of the loop.
Looking again, your check is wrong. I think you need:
diff = period_rate - NSEC_PER_SEC * (pre_div + 1) * (pwm_div + 1)
. Given the calculations for pre_div and pwm_div this should never be
negative and you should pick values that minimize diff.
> Do we actually need diff > 0 in the condition below?
>
> >> + /*
> >> + * pre_div and pwm_div values swap produces the same
> >> + * result. This loop goes over all pre_div <= pwm_div
> >> + * combinations. The rest are equivalent.
> >> + */
> >
> > I'd write:
> >
> > /*
> > * Swapping values for pre_div and pwm_div produces the same
> > * period length. So we can skip all settings with pre_div <
> > * pwm_div which results in bigger constraints for selecting the
> > * duty_cycle than with the two values swapped.
> > */
>
> I'll take your wording with inverted inequality sign.
Right.
Looking forward to your next iteration.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
