Hi Uwe,
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:22:27AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Jeff,
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:03:02AM +0000, Jeff LaBundy wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 08:32:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 12:38:36AM +0000, Jeff LaBundy wrote:
> > > > This patch adds support for the Azoteq IQS620A, capable of generating
> > > > a 1-kHz PWM output with duty cycle between 0.4% and 100% (inclusive).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff LaBundy <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Merged 'Copyright' and 'Author' lines into one in introductory comments
> > > > - Added 'Limitations' section to introductory comments
> > > > - Replaced 'error' with 'ret' throughout
> > > > - Added const qualifier to state argument of iqs620_pwm_apply and removed all
> > > > modifications to the variable's contents
> > > > - Updated iqs620_pwm_apply to return -ENOTSUPP or -EINVAL if the requested
> > > > polarity is inverted or the requested period is below 1 ms, respectively
> > > > - Updated iqs620_pwm_apply to disable the PWM output if duty cycle is zero
> > > > - Added iqs620_pwm_get_state
> > > > - Eliminated tabbed alignment of pwm_ops and platform_driver struct members
> > > > - Moved notifier unregistration to already present iqs620_pwm_remove, which
> > > > eliminated the need for a device-managed action and ready flag
> > > > - Added a comment in iqs620_pwm_probe to explain the order of operations
> > > > - Changed Kconfig "depends on" logic to MFD_IQS62X || COMPILE_TEST
> > > >
> > > > drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 10 +++
> > > > drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-iqs620a.c | 206 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 217 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-iqs620a.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > > > index bd21655..60bcf6c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -222,6 +222,16 @@ config PWM_IMX_TPM
> > > > To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> > > > will be called pwm-imx-tpm.
> > > >
> > > > +config PWM_IQS620A
> > > > + tristate "Azoteq IQS620A PWM support"
> > > > + depends on MFD_IQS62X || COMPILE_TEST
> > > > + help
> > > > + Generic PWM framework driver for the Azoteq IQS620A multi-function
> > > > + sensor.
> > > > +
> > > > + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module will
> > > > + be called pwm-iqs620a.
> > > > +
> > > > config PWM_JZ4740
> > > > tristate "Ingenic JZ47xx PWM support"
> > > > depends on MACH_INGENIC
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > > > index 9a47507..a59c710 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMG) += pwm-img.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX1) += pwm-imx1.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX27) += pwm-imx27.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX_TPM) += pwm-imx-tpm.o
> > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IQS620A) += pwm-iqs620a.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_JZ4740) += pwm-jz4740.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LP3943) += pwm-lp3943.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LPC18XX_SCT) += pwm-lpc18xx-sct.o
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-iqs620a.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-iqs620a.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000..1ea11b9
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-iqs620a.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Azoteq IQS620A PWM Generator
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Copyright (C) 2019 Jeff LaBundy <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Limitations:
> > > > + * - The period is not guaranteed to run to completion when the duty cycle is
> > > > + * changed or the output is disabled.
> > >
> > > Do you know more details here? "not guaranteed" means that the new
> > > period starts immediately when duty_cycle or the enabled bit is written?
> > >
> >
> > Increasing the duty cycle on-the-fly (e.g. 25% to 75%) results in the
> > following behavior (depending on where the I2C write falls):
> >
> > I2C write
> > __ __ __ V_ ______ ______ ______ __
> > __| |______| |______| |_|x|__| |__| |__| |__|
> > ^---1ms---^---1ms---^---1ms---^---1ms---^---1ms---^---1ms---^
> >
> > The PWM continues to tick at 1 ms, but the currently running period suffers
> > an extraneous pulse as the output is abruptly set high to "catch up" to the
> > new duty cycle.
> >
> > A similar behavior can occur if the duty cycle is decreased, meaning the
> > output is abruptly set low if the I2C transaction completes in what has
> > suddenly become the inactive region of the currently running period.
> >
> > The PWM seems to be a simple counter that rolls over at a period of 1 ms.
> > Both the counter and the IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE register effectively go to
> > a comparator whose output is ANDed with IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT which
> > then drives the PWM output.
> >
> > As such, if either IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE or IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT
> > change, so may the PWM output state depending on the counter's value at
> > the time the I2C write is completed within the 1-ms continuous loop.
> >
> > For v3 I will update the note as follows:
> >
> > - Changes in duty cycle or enable/disable state are immediately reflected
> > by the PWM output and are not aligned to the start of any period.
>
> I'd like to see a bit more information in the driver. Something about
> the 1ms rhythm being unaffected by the duty_cycle and enable setting.
> Maybe:
>
> - The periods run continuously with a fixed length of 1 ms which is
> unaffected by register updates. Writing duty cycle or enable
> registers gets active immediately which might result in glitches.
>
> ?
>
I adjusted the wording a bit as per my preference and settled on the
following:
- The period is fixed to 1 ms and is generated continuously despite changes
to the duty cycle or enable/disable state.
- Changes to the duty cycle or enable/disable state take effect immediately
and may result in a glitch during the period in which the change is made.
I believe these capture the spirit of your message; please let me know if
you have any concerns.
Upon further experimentation, I found that disabling the output (which v2
does so as to simulate a 0% duty cycle) does not actively drive zero, but
rather places the output in a high-impedance state with only the device's
own internal leakage eventually discharging the pin.
This is fundamentally different than actively driving the pin low to make
a 0% duty cycle, which does not appear to be possible at all. Therefore I
have removed the control of IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT based on the duty
cycle requested by the user and reverted to the behavior of v1, where the
duty cycle requested by the user is mapped only to IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE.
As such, I have also added a third bullet point similar to what you first
suggested following v1:
- The device cannot generate a 0% duty cycle.
> >
> > > > + * - The period is fixed to 1 ms.
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/device.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/iqs62x.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#define IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS 0xD2
> > > > +#define IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT BIT(7)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE 0xD8
> > > > +
> > > > +#define IQS620_PWM_PERIOD_NS 1000000
> > > > +
> > > > +struct iqs620_pwm_private {
> > > > + struct iqs62x_core *iqs62x;
> > > > + struct pwm_chip chip;
> > > > + struct notifier_block notifier;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static int iqs620_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > + const struct pwm_state *state)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct iqs620_pwm_private *iqs620_pwm;
> > > > + struct iqs62x_core *iqs62x;
> > > > + unsigned int pwm_out = 0;
> > > > + int duty_scale, ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> > > > + return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (state->period < IQS620_PWM_PERIOD_NS)
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + iqs620_pwm = container_of(chip, struct iqs620_pwm_private, chip);
> > > > + iqs62x = iqs620_pwm->iqs62x;
> > > > +
> > > > + duty_scale = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(state->duty_cycle * 256,
> > > > + IQS620_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (duty_scale) {
> > > > + ret = regmap_write(iqs62x->map, IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE,
> > > > + min(duty_scale - 1, 0xFF));
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (state->enabled)
> > > > + pwm_out = IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return regmap_update_bits(iqs62x->map, IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS,
> > > > + IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT, pwm_out);
> > >
> > > A comment explaining the semantic here would be good. I assume
> > > IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE takes a value between 0 and 255 and the resulting
> > > duty cycle is:
> > >
> > > (IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE + 1) / 256 * 1 ms
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > If this is right, please use:
> > >
> > > duty_scale = (state->duty_cycle * 256) / IQS620_PWM_PERIOD_NS
> > >
> >
> > Sure thing, will do. I'll add a comment and round down. Your assumption is
> > correct as well.
> >
> > > Also, when the hardware is running at
> > >
> > > .enabled = 1, .duty_cycle = 1/256 ms, .period = 1ms
> > >
> > > and you reconfigure to
> > >
> > > .enabled = 0, .duty_cycle = 1ms, .period = 1ms
> > >
> > > the output might be active for > 1/256 ms if the process is preempted
> > > between writing IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE and IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT.
> > >
> >
> > Good catch. I think we can solve this by writing IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE
> > first followed by IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT when the PWM is going to
> > be enabled, and the reverse when the PWM is going to be disabled (i.e.
> > turn OFF to prevent a stale duty cycle from being temporarily driven).
>
> Sounds like a plan. After disabling you even don't need to write the
> duty cycle register. (But there might be a discussion ahead that
> .get_state should return the duty cycle.)
>
For v3, I've opted to write IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE regardless of whether the PWM
is enabled as a matter of principle (i.e. faithfully pass the entire state down
to the hardware without making assumptions).
And since some consumers (e.g. leds-pwm, the primary use-case for this PWM) may
pre-configure the duty cycle while the PWM is disabled, this method ensures the
driver is already compliant in case 01ccf903edd6 returns.
Also, as mentioned above, I have dropped the automatic disabling of the PWM to
simulate a 0% duty cycle if the requested duty cycle is < 1 / 256 ms since the
device does not actively drive a zero with IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT = 0. In
the interest of transparency, here is what I currently have for v3:
static int iqs620_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
const struct pwm_state *state)
{
struct iqs620_pwm_private *iqs620_pwm;
struct iqs62x_core *iqs62x;
int duty_scale, ret;
if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
return -ENOTSUPP;
if (state->period < IQS620_PWM_PERIOD_NS)
return -EINVAL;
iqs620_pwm = container_of(chip, struct iqs620_pwm_private, chip);
iqs62x = iqs620_pwm->iqs62x;
if (!state->enabled) {
ret = regmap_update_bits(iqs62x->map, IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS,
IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT, 0);
if (ret)
return ret;
}
/*
* The duty cycle generated by the device is calculated as follows:
*
* duty_cycle = (IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE + 1) / 256 * 1 ms
*
* ...where IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE is a register value between 0 and 255
* (inclusive). Therefore the lowest duty cycle the device can generate
* while the output is enabled is 1 / 256 ms.
*/
duty_scale = state->duty_cycle * 256 / IQS620_PWM_PERIOD_NS - 1;
ret = regmap_write(iqs62x->map, IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE,
clamp(duty_scale, 0, 0xFF));
if (ret)
return ret;
if (state->enabled)
ret = regmap_update_bits(iqs62x->map, IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS,
IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT, 0xFF);
return ret;
}
I believe this captures all of the discussion thus far; please let me know if you
have any concerns.
> > > > +static int iqs620_pwm_notifier(struct notifier_block *notifier,
> > > > + unsigned long event_flags, void *context)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct iqs620_pwm_private *iqs620_pwm;
> > > > + struct pwm_state state;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!(event_flags & BIT(IQS62X_EVENT_SYS_RESET)))
> > > > + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> > > > +
> > > > + iqs620_pwm = container_of(notifier, struct iqs620_pwm_private,
> > > > + notifier);
> > > > + pwm_get_state(&iqs620_pwm->chip.pwms[0], &state);
> > >
> > > Please don't call pwm API functions in callbacks. I assume you rely on
> > > pwm_get_state returning the previously set state and that
> > > iqs620_pwm_get_state isn't called. Please use pwm->state for that.
> > >
> >
> > Sure thing, will do. Your assumption is correct. If pwm_get_state called
> > chip->ops->get_state instead of return pwm->state as it does today, this
> > function would break because it would restore the hardware using default
> > register values (since this function follows a reset).
> >
> > Just for my own understanding, are you saying the PWM framework reserves
> > the right to update pwm_get_state to call chip->ops->get_state some time
> > in the future? In any event I will refer to pwm->state as that is what I
> > ultimately need here.
>
> This already was the case for a short time before v5.4. See 01ccf903edd6
> and 40a6b9a00930. (And note that the lazyness mentioned above about not
> needing to write duty_cycle when the PWM is off is what made the
> approach break however.) I don't know yet how to proceed here. Being
> able to get the actually implemented setting would be nice, probably it
> is prudent to do this with another API function.
>
> Other than that I consider it a layer violation to call a function that
> is designed for consumers in a lowlevel driver. I don't know if we need
> locking at some time, but if the core holded a lock when .apply is
> called, .apply calls pwm_get_state which wanted to grab the lock again
> we get a dead-lock.
>
I think we may be imagining two different hazards (please correct me if I have
misunderstood). Originally I thought you were warning that pwm_get_state (which
simply returns pwm->state) may in the future call chip->ops->get_state instead,
which here would have caused iqs620_pwm_notifier to call iqs620_pwm_apply with
a reset-like state rather than the last state requested by the user (since this
notifier is called after the device resets itself).
The short-lived change during the 5.4-rc phase, however, was to fill pwm->state
in pwm_apply_state with the quantized state from the hardware instead of the raw
state requested by the user. Whether pwm->state (accessed directly or by calling
pwm_get_state) gives the raw state or the quantized output of get_state following
the last call to pwm_apply_state does not change the outcome (for this particular
driver) because iqs620_pwm_apply ultimately writes the same register values. Just
to be safe, I've been testing with and without 01ccf903edd6 applied locally so as
to validate the behavior in both scenarios.
What I missed originally is that pwm_get_state is intended for consumers only, in
which case I agree it is fundamentally wrong to cannibalize it in the driver. For
v3 I have changed iqs620_pwm_notifier to reference pwm->state directly since that
is what is ultimately needed in the first place.
You're correct that a lock within the core would cause a deadlock; in this case I
was proposing a lock around the pair of reads/writes to IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE and
IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT since v2 introduced an implied relationship between
the two. That would be safe since chip->ops->apply returns before pwm_apply_state
calls chip->ops->get_state.
However, even that is no longer necessary since IQS620_PWR_SETTINGS_PWM_OUT is now
written independently of IQS620_PWM_DUTY_CYCLE due to withdrawing support for a 0%
duty cycle starting in v3. In short, I didn't end up adding any locks as there was
no need.
> > FWIW, I borrowed the idea from the resume callback of [0] which possibly
> > suffers the same fate if I have understood the concern correctly.
>
> Yeah, there are many drivers that are not up to date with my review
> requirements. The problem is a) missing time to update them and b) for
> some drivers it's hard to get test coverage for changes.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Kind regards,
Jeff LaBundy
