Hello,
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 08:44:00AM -0400, Alex Lanzano wrote:
> +static void sharp_memory_crtc_enable(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> + struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> +{
> + struct pwm_state pwm_state;
> + struct sharp_memory_device *smd = drm_to_sharp_memory_device(crtc->dev);
> +
> + sharp_memory_clear_display(smd);
> +
> + if (smd->enable_gpio)
> + gpiod_set_value(smd->enable_gpio, 1);
> +
> + switch (smd->vcom_mode) {
> + case SHARP_MEMORY_SOFTWARE_VCOM:
> + smd->sw_vcom_signal = kthread_run(sharp_memory_sw_vcom_signal_thread,
> + smd, "sw_vcom_signal");
> + break;
> +
> + case SHARP_MEMORY_EXTERNAL_VCOM:
> + break;
> +
> + case SHARP_MEMORY_PWM_VCOM:
> + pwm_get_state(smd->pwm_vcom_signal, &pwm_state);
I'd prefer using pwm_init_state() here instead of pwm_get_state(), The
former only depends on machine description (probably device tree), the
latter depends on what happend before to the PWM. While it probably
doesn't make a difference in practise, the former is more deterministic.
> + pwm_state.period = 1000000000;
> + pwm_state.duty_cycle = 100000000;
Unusual indention.
The device tree (and also ACPI) defines a default period for a PWM. If
you used pwm_init_state() -- as suggested above -- you could just use
pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(smd->pwm_vcom_signal, 1, 10); here.
> + pwm_state.enabled = true;
> + pwm_apply_might_sleep(smd->pwm_vcom_signal, &pwm_state);
> + break;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void sharp_memory_crtc_disable(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> + struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> +{
> + struct sharp_memory_device *smd = drm_to_sharp_memory_device(crtc->dev);
> +
> + sharp_memory_clear_display(smd);
> +
> + if (smd->enable_gpio)
> + gpiod_set_value(smd->enable_gpio, 0);
> +
> + switch (smd->vcom_mode) {
> + case SHARP_MEMORY_SOFTWARE_VCOM:
> + kthread_stop(smd->sw_vcom_signal);
> + break;
> +
> + case SHARP_MEMORY_EXTERNAL_VCOM:
> + break;
> +
> + case SHARP_MEMORY_PWM_VCOM:
> + pwm_disable(smd->pwm_vcom_signal);
What is the objective here? Do you want to save energy and don't care
about the output? Or do you want the PWM to emit the inactive level?
Note that for the second case, pwm_disable() is wrong, as depending on
the underlying hardware the PWM might continue to toggle or emit a
constant active level.
> + break;
> + }
> +}
> +
> [...]
> +
> +static int sharp_memory_init_pwm_vcom_signal(struct sharp_memory_device *smd)
> +{
> + struct pwm_state state;
> + struct device *dev = &smd->spi->dev;
> +
> + smd->pwm_vcom_signal = devm_pwm_get(dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(smd->pwm_vcom_signal))
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "Could not get pwm device\n");
> +
> + pwm_init_state(smd->pwm_vcom_signal, &state);
> + state.enabled = false;
> + pwm_apply_might_sleep(smd->pwm_vcom_signal, &state);
Same question as above. If you care about the output level, use
{
.period = ...,
.duty_cycle = 0,
.enabled = true,
}
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Best regards
Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
