Hi,
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 12:52:00PM +0300, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
> On 2.10.23 г. 11:20 ч., Sean Young wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:49:47AM +0300, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
> > > On 1.10.23 г. 13:40 ч., Sean Young wrote:
> > > > The pwm-ir-tx driver has to turn the pwm signal on and off, and suffers
> > > > from delays as this is done in process context. Make this work in atomic
> > > > context.
> > > >
> > > > This makes the driver much more precise.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c b/drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c
> > > > index c5f37c03af9c..557725a07a67 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.c
> > > > @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
> > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > #include <linux/of.h>
> > > > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/hrtimer.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/completion.h>
> > > > #include <media/rc-core.h>
> > > > #define DRIVER_NAME "pwm-ir-tx"
> > > > @@ -17,8 +19,13 @@
> > > > struct pwm_ir {
> > > > struct pwm_device *pwm;
> > > > - unsigned int carrier;
> > > > - unsigned int duty_cycle;
> > > > + struct hrtimer timer;
> > > > + struct completion completion;
> > > > + uint carrier;
> > > > + uint duty_cycle;
> > > > + uint *txbuf;
> > > > + uint txbuf_len;
> > > > + uint txbuf_index;
> > > > };
> > > > static const struct of_device_id pwm_ir_of_match[] = {
> > > > @@ -55,33 +62,65 @@ static int pwm_ir_tx(struct rc_dev *dev, unsigned int *txbuf,
> > > > struct pwm_ir *pwm_ir = dev->priv;
> > > > struct pwm_device *pwm = pwm_ir->pwm;
> > > > struct pwm_state state;
> > > > - int i;
> > > > - ktime_t edge;
> > > > - long delta;
> > > > +
> > > > + reinit_completion(&pwm_ir->completion);
> > >
> > > You should not need that.
> >
> > It does not work without it - the process doing the 2nd tx hangs indefinitely.
> >
>
> that means your calls to wait_for_completion() / complete() do not match. I
> think you should check why.
I've had a deeper look and you're right. Thanks!
> > > > pwm_init_state(pwm, &state);
> > > > state.period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(NSEC_PER_SEC, pwm_ir->carrier);
> > > > pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&state, pwm_ir->duty_cycle, 100);
> > > > + state.enabled = false;
> > > > - edge = ktime_get();
> > > > + pwm_ir->txbuf = txbuf;
> > > > + pwm_ir->txbuf_len = count;
> > > > + pwm_ir->txbuf_index = 0;
> > > > - for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > > > - state.enabled = !(i % 2);
> > > > - pwm_apply_state(pwm, &state);
> > > > + pwm_apply_state(pwm, &state);
> > >
> > > ditto, first pwm control should be in the timer function
> >
> > This requires keeping a copy of pwm_state in pwm_ir but does avoid the extra
> > call to pwm_apply_state() here.
> >
>
> not really, you can have pwm_state * pwm_ir member and pass pointer to the
> stack variable.
Ah, good point, I had not thought of that :)
> > Having said that, the extra call to pwm_apply_state() may have benefits,
> > see this comment in the pwm-sifive driver:
> >
> > * - When changing both duty cycle and period, we cannot prevent in
> > * software that the output might produce a period with mixed
> > * settings (new period length and old duty cycle).
> >
> > So setting the duty cycle and period once with enabled = false prevents a
> > first period with mixed settings (i.e. bogus).
> >
>
> Who will enable pwm if not in tx? Like, doesn't the driver have exclusive
> ownership of the pwm? Also, every transmission ends up wit pwm disabled, so
> disabling it once again does not make sense to me.
My only point was that if the period/duty cycle have changed, then the extra
disable may set up the parameters in the pwm hardware correctly (according
to this comment). Uwe has already responded saying this is not going to work,
so this can be ignored.
> > > > - edge = ktime_add_us(edge, txbuf[i]);
> > > > - delta = ktime_us_delta(edge, ktime_get());
> > > > - if (delta > 0)
> > > > - usleep_range(delta, delta + 10);
> > > > - }
> > > > + hrtimer_start(&pwm_ir->timer, 1000, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> > >
> > > why not just call it with 0 time?
> >
> > Otherwise the timings are a little off for the first edge - hrtimer setup
> > time, I think. I can experiment again.
> >
>
> Why is that? Edge start is controlled by the calls in timer function, it
> should not matter when it is called for the first time.
Again, you're right.
> > > > - state.enabled = false;
> > > > - pwm_apply_state(pwm, &state);
> > > > + wait_for_completion(&pwm_ir->completion);
> > > > return count;
> > > > }
> > > > +static enum hrtimer_restart pwm_ir_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pwm_ir *pwm_ir = container_of(timer, struct pwm_ir, timer);
> > > > + ktime_t now;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If we happen to hit an odd latency spike, loop through the
> > > > + * pulses until we catch up.
> > > > + */
> > > > + do {
> > > > + u64 ns;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (pwm_ir->txbuf_index >= pwm_ir->txbuf_len) {
> > > > + /* Stop TX here */
> > > > + pwm_disable(pwm_ir->pwm);
> > > > +
> > > > + complete(&pwm_ir->completion);
> > > > +
> > > > + return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (pwm_ir->txbuf_index % 2)
> > > > + pwm_disable(pwm_ir->pwm);
> > > > + else
> > > > + pwm_enable(pwm_ir->pwm);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > pwm_ir->pwm->state.enabled = !(pwm_ir->txbuf_index % 2);
> > > pwm_apply_state(pwm_ir->pwm, pwm_ir->state);
> >
> > Requires a copy of pwm_state in pwm_ir, not a huge difference (copy of 28
> > bytes vs keeping it around).
>
> see my previous comment re struct var. Also, look at the overhead:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.6-rc3/source/include/linux/pwm.h#L349 -
> you call pwm_get_state() for every edge.
That's the 28 bytes copy I was talking about.
However keeping a pointer in struct pwm_ir is a good compromise and makes
the rest of the code cleaner.
> > > > + ns = US_TO_NS(pwm_ir->txbuf[pwm_ir->txbuf_index]);
> > > > + hrtimer_add_expires_ns(timer, ns);
> > > > +
> > > > + pwm_ir->txbuf_index++;
> > > > +
> > > > + now = timer->base->get_time();
> > > > + } while (hrtimer_get_expires_tv64(timer) < now);
> > > > +
> > > > + return HRTIMER_RESTART;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static int pwm_ir_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > {
> > > > struct pwm_ir *pwm_ir;
> > > > @@ -96,8 +135,16 @@ static int pwm_ir_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > if (IS_ERR(pwm_ir->pwm))
> > > > return PTR_ERR(pwm_ir->pwm);
> > > > + if (pwm_can_sleep(pwm_ir->pwm)) {
> > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unsupported pwm device: driver can sleep\n");
> > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I think we shall not limit, but use high priority thread to support those
> > > drivers. I have that working on n900 with current (sleeping) pwm, see my
> > > reply on the other mail. Maybe we can combine both patches in a way to
> > > support both atomic and sleeping pwm drivers.
> >
> > If the ir-rx51 driver uses a sleeping pwm then that's broken and only works
> > by accident - the current driver is broken then.
> >
>
> Yes, and I stated that couple of times in my previous emails :)
>
> > Spinning for longer periods (e.g. 100us) does not play well with RT. Would
> > make more sense to fix the pwm driver to non-sleeping when a pwm driver
> > is used for pwm-ir-tx?
> >
>
> Sure, and I have a patch for n900 that does this, however, for your i2c case
> there is no solution. Also, we may play smart and dynamically decrease sleep
> time (by adjusting edge by lets say 5-10 us every pulse until we have some
> sane value) if we see it is too long. No strong preferences here, it is just
> that I have code that works.
So in order to get everything in order for atomic pwm, we need a few patches
to land. Let's try to get your patch merged for the next release cycle, so
that at least tx on the n900 works and there is improved tx for other devices
(although not the most efficient).
Thanks,
Sean
