On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:30 AM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:11 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:11:16PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:48:08AM +0200, Michal Vokáč wrote:
> > > > On 17. 10. 19 10:10, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > A previous change in the pwm core (namely 01ccf903edd6 ("pwm: Let
> > > > > pwm_get_state() return the last implemented state")) changed the
> > > > > semantic of pwm_get_state() and disclosed an (as it seems) common
> > > > > problem in lowlevel PWM drivers. By not relying on the period and duty
> > > > > cycle being retrievable from a disabled PWM this type of problem is
> > > > > worked around.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from this issue only calling the pwm_get_state/pwm_apply_state
> > > > > combo once is also more effective.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > There are now two reports about 01ccf903edd6 breaking a backlight. As
> > > > > far as I understand the problem this is a combination of the backend pwm
> > > > > driver yielding surprising results and the pwm-bl driver doing things
> > > > > more complicated than necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I guess this patch works around these problems. Still it would be
> > > > > interesting to find out the details in the imx driver that triggers the
> > > > > problem. So Adam, can you please instrument the pwm-imx27 driver to
> > > > > print *state at the beginning of pwm_imx27_apply() and the end of
> > > > > pwm_imx27_get_state() and provide the results?
> > > > >
> > > > > Note I only compile tested this change.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Uwe,
> > > > I was just about to respond to the "pwm_bl on i.MX6Q broken on 5.4-RC1+"
> > > > thread that I have a similar problem when you submitted this patch.
> > > >
> > > > So here are my few cents:
> > > >
> > > > My setup is as follows:
> > > > - imx6dl-yapp4-draco with i.MX6Solo
> > > > - backlight is controlled with inverted PWM signal
> > > > - max brightness level = 32, default brightness level set to 32 in DT.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Almost correct backlight behavior before 01ccf903edd6 ("pwm: Let
> > > > pwm_get_state() return the last implemented state):
> > > >
> > > > - System boots to userspace and backlight is enabled all the time from
> > > > power up.
> > > >
> > > > $ dmesg | grep state
> > > > [ 1.763381] get state end: -1811360608, enabled: 0
> > >
> > > What is -1811360608? When I wrote "print *state" above, I thought about
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > pr_info("%s: period: %u, duty: %u, polarity: %d, enabled: %d",
> > > __func__, state->period, state->duty_cycle, state->polarity, state->enabled);
> > >
> > > A quick look into drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c shows that this is another
> > > driver that yields duty_cycle = 0 when the hardware is off.
> >
> > It seems to me like the best recourse to fix this for now would be to
> > patch up the drivers that return 0 when the hardware is off by caching
> > the currently configured duty cycle.
> >
> > How about the patch below?
> >
> > Thierry
> >
> > --- >8 ---
> > From 15a52a7f1b910804fabd74a5882befd3f9d6bb37 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:56:00 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] pwm: imx27: Cache duty cycle register value
> >
> > The hardware register containing the duty cycle value cannot be accessed
> > when the PWM is disabled. This causes the ->get_state() callback to read
> > back a duty cycle value of 0, which can confuse consumer drivers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>
Your patch doesn't appear to being the PWM on by default, but I appear
to be able to do stuff without the screen going blank, so I think
we're making some progress. I unrolled the pwm_bl changes, but kept
yours but I am not seeing any ability to change the brightness.
Level 1-7 all appear to me to be the same.
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > index ae11d8577f18..4113d5cd4c62 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > @@ -85,6 +85,13 @@ struct pwm_imx27_chip {
> > struct clk *clk_per;
> > void __iomem *mmio_base;
> > struct pwm_chip chip;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The driver cannot read the current duty cycle from the hardware if
> > + * the hardware is disabled. Cache the last programmed duty cycle
> > + * value to return in that case.
> > + */
> > + unsigned int duty_cycle;
> > };
> >
> > #define to_pwm_imx27_chip(chip) container_of(chip, struct pwm_imx27_chip, chip)
> > @@ -155,14 +162,17 @@ static void pwm_imx27_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> > tmp = NSEC_PER_SEC * (u64)(period + 2);
> > state->period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, pwm_clk);
> >
> > - /* PWMSAR can be read only if PWM is enabled */
> > - if (state->enabled) {
> > + /*
> > + * PWMSAR can be read only if PWM is enabled. If the PWM is disabled,
> > + * use the cached value.
> > + */
> > + if (state->enabled)
> > val = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > - tmp = NSEC_PER_SEC * (u64)(val);
> > - state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, pwm_clk);
> > - } else {
> > - state->duty_cycle = 0;
> > - }
> > + else
> > + val = imx->duty_cycle;
> > +
> > + tmp = NSEC_PER_SEC * (u64)(val);
> > + state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, pwm_clk);
>
> Is this right? It seems like the tmp and state->duty_cycle
> caltulations should be kept inside "if (state->enabled)" because if we
> set val to the duty_cycle in the else, I would think it is going to
> calculate this again.
>
> I think the 'else' should be 'state->duty_cycle = imx->duty_cycle'
> because we shouldn't need to recalculate this again.
>
> Am I missing something?
I figured out what I was missing.
>
> adam
> >
> > if (!state->enabled)
> > pwm_imx27_clk_disable_unprepare(chip);
> > @@ -261,6 +271,13 @@ static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Store the duty cycle for future reference in cases where
> > + * the MX3_PWMSAR register can't be read (i.e. when the PWM
> > + * is disabled).
> > + */
> > + imx->duty_cycle = duty_cycles;
> > +
> > cr = MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER_SET(prescale) |
> > MX3_PWMCR_STOPEN | MX3_PWMCR_DOZEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN |
> > FIELD_PREP(MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC, MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH) |
> > --
> > 2.23.0
> >
