On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:54:57AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > Hi Grant, Lars, Thierry, > > On 11/26/2012 04:46 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > > You're effectively asking the pwm layer to behave like a gpio (which > > is completely reasonable). Having a completely separate translation node > > really doesn't make sense because it is entirely a software construct. > > In fact, the way your using it is *entirely* to make the Linux driver > > model instantiate the translation code. It has *nothing* to do with the > > structure of the hardware. It makes complete sense that if a PWM is > > going to be used as a GPIO, then the PWM node should conform to the GPIO > > binding. > > I understand your point around this. I might say I agree with it as well... > I spent yesterday with prototyping and I'm not really convinced that it is a > good approach from C code point of view. I got it working, yes. > In essence this is what I have on top of the slightly modified gpio-pwm.c > driver I have submitted: > > DTS files: > twl_pwm: pwm { > /* provides two PWMs (id 0, 1 for PWM1 and PWM2) */ > compatible = "ti,twl6030-pwm"; > #pwm-cells = <2>; > > /* Enable GPIO us of the PWMs */ > gpio-controller = <1>; > #gpio-cells = <2>; > pwm,period_ns = <7812500>; > }; > > leds { > compatible = "gpio-leds"; > backlight { > label = "omap4::backlight"; > gpios = <&twl_pwm 1 0>; /* PWM1 of twl6030 */ > }; > > keypad { > label = "omap4::keypad"; > gpios = <&twl_pwm 0 0>; /* PWM0 of twl6030 */ > }; > }; > > The bulk of the code in drivers/pwm/core.c to create the pwm-gpo device when > it is requested going to look something like this. I have removed the error > checks for now and I still don't have the code to clean up the allocated > memory for the created device on error, or in case the module is unloaded. We > should also prevent the pwm core from removal when the pwm-gpo driver is loaded. > We need to create the platform device for gpo-pwm, create the pdata structure > for it and fill it in. We also need to hand craft the pwm_lookup table so we > can use pwm_get() to request the PWM. I have other minor changes around this > to get things working when we booted with DT. > So the function to do the heavy lifting is something like this: > static void of_pwmchip_as_gpio(struct pwm_chip *chip) > { > struct platform_device *pdev; > struct gpio_pwm *gpos; > struct gpio_pwm_pdata *pdata; > struct pwm_lookup *lookup; > char gpodev_name[15]; > int i; > u32 gpio_mode = 0; > u32 period_ns = 0; > > of_property_read_u32(chip->dev->of_node, "gpio-controller", > &gpio_mode); > if (!gpio_mode) > return; > > of_property_read_u32(chip->dev->of_node, "pwm,period_ns", &period_ns); > if (!period_ns) { > dev_err(chip->dev, > "period_ns is not specified for GPIO use\n"); > return; > } > > lookup = devm_kzalloc(chip->dev, sizeof(*lookup) * chip->npwm, > GFP_KERNEL); > pdata = devm_kzalloc(chip->dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL); > gpos = devm_kzalloc(chip->dev, sizeof(*gpos) * chip->npwm, > GFP_KERNEL); > > pdata->gpos = gpos; > pdata->num_gpos = chip->npwm; > pdata->gpio_base = -1; > > pdev = platform_device_alloc("pwm-gpo", chip->base); > pdev->dev.parent = chip->dev; > > sprintf(gpodev_name, "pwm-gpo.%d", chip->base); > for (i = 0; i < chip->npwm; i++) { > struct gpio_pwm *gpo = &gpos[i]; > struct pwm_lookup *pl = &lookup[i]; > char con_id[15]; > > sprintf(con_id, "pwm-gpo.%d", chip->base + i); > > /* prepare GPO information */ > gpo->pwm_period_ns = period_ns; > gpo->name = kmemdup(con_id, sizeof(con_id), GFP_KERNEL);; > > /* prepare pwm lookup table */ > pl->provider = dev_name(chip->dev); > pl->index = i; > pl->dev_id = kmemdup(gpodev_name, sizeof(gpodev_name), > GFP_KERNEL); > pl->con_id = kmemdup(con_id, sizeof(con_id), GFP_KERNEL); > } > > platform_device_add_data(pdev, pdata, sizeof(*pdata)); > pwm_add_table(lookup, chip->npwm); > platform_device_add(pdev); > } > > PS: as I have said I have removed the error check just to make the code > snippet more readable and yes we need to do some memory cleanup as well at the > right time. > > Is this something you would like to see? I must say I'm not terribly thrilled to integrate something like this into the PWM subsystem. I wish hardware engineers wouldn't come up with such designs. But since this seems to be a real use-case, if we want to support it we should try and find the "right" solution. Reading the above sounds overly complicated. Couldn't we, instead of instantiating an extra driver, just register a GPIO chip if a chip wants to support this functionality? Where the GPIO chip's request callback requests the given PWM so that it cannot be used elsewhere? The direction_input callback would need to always fail and the set callback can configure the PWM either to 0% or 100% duty-cycle depending on the desired output value. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpb6MZS7BALZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature