Hi Uwe,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:21 PM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:22:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:48 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 09:44:38PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 1 May 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > Without this change it can happen that if changing the polarity succeeded
> > > > > but changing duty_cycle and period failed pwm->state contains a mixture
> > > > > between the old and the requested state.
> > > > >
> > > > > So remember the initial state before starting to modify the configuration
> > > > > and restore it when one of the required callback fails.
> > > > >
> > > > > Compared to the previous implementation .disable() (if necessary) is called
> > > > > earlier to prevent a glitch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit d7bff84fe7ed8c3b ("pwm:
> > > > Ensure for legacy drivers that pwm->state stays consistent") in
> > > > pwm/for-next.
> > > >
> > > > This commit broke the backlight on the Atmark Techno Armadillo 800 EVA
> > > > board (arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740-armadillo800eva.dts), which now shows a
> > > > black screen. Reverting the commit fixes the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have an idea what is wrong, and how to fix it?
> > >
> > > I starred at the patch for some time now and couldn't find a problem.
> > > Looking at drivers/pwm/pwm-renesas-tpu.c I don't see something obvious.
> > > (The .set_polarity callback is faulty as I doesn't commit the request to
> > > hardware, but that shouldn't matter here.)
> > >
> > > I guess the first request the backlight driver emits is
> > >
> > > .period = 33333,
> > > .duty_cycle = 33333,
> > > .enabled = true,
> > > .polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED,
> > >
> > > which should result into the following driver calls (with and without
> > > the breaking commit):
> > >
> > > tpu_pwm_set_polarity(chip, pwm, PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED);
> > > tpu_pwm_config(chip, pwm, 33333, 33333);
> > > tpu_pwm_enable(chip, pwm);
> > >
> > > Can you confirm that?
> >
> > tpu_pwm_config() is no longer called:
> >
> > renesas-tpu-pwm e6600000.pwm: tpu_pwm_set_polarity:334: channel
> > 2, polarity = 1
> > -renesas-tpu-pwm e6600000.pwm: tpu_pwm_config:257: channel = 2,
> > duty_ns = 0, period_ns = 33333
> > -renesas-tpu-pwm e6600000.pwm: tpu_pwm_config:257: channel = 2,
> > duty_ns = 33333, period_ns = 33333
> > renesas-tpu-pwm e6600000.pwm: tpu_pwm_enable:346: channel 2
>
> OK, I see a problem (though this doesn't explain the display staying
> off directly after boot):
>
> After doing:
>
> pwm_apply_state(pwm, { .period = 33333, .duty_cycle = 0, .enabled = false, .polarity = ..});
>
> .period and .duty_cycle are assumed to be set even though calling
> ->config was skipped because .enabled is false.
>
> So when
>
> pwm_apply_state(pwm, { .period = 33333, .duty_cycle = 0, .enabled = true, .polarity = ..});
>
> is called next, ->config isn't called because the core assumes
> .duty_cycle and .period are already setup fine.
>
> So we either must not skip calling ->config when .enabled is false:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> index ab38627bcacd..f8a5a095a410 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> @@ -558,12 +558,8 @@ static int pwm_apply_legacy(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> pwm->state.polarity = state->polarity;
> }
>
> - if (!state->enabled) {
> - if (pwm->state.enabled)
> - chip->ops->disable(chip, pwm);
> -
> - return 0;
> - }
> + if (!state->enabled && pwm->state.enabled)
> + chip->ops->disable(chip, pwm);
>
> if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
> state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
> @@ -577,7 +573,7 @@ static int pwm_apply_legacy(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> pwm->state.duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
> }
>
> - if (!pwm->state.enabled) {
> + if (state->enabled && !pwm->state.enabled) {
> err = chip->ops->enable(chip, pwm);
> if (err)
> goto rollback;
Works.
> or we have to call ->config unconditionally:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> index ab38627bcacd..05d7afe25b42 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> @@ -565,17 +565,21 @@ static int pwm_apply_legacy(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> return 0;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * We cannot skip this even if state->period == pwm->state.period &&
> + * state->duty_cycle == pwm->state.duty_cycle because we might have
> + * exited early in the last call to pwm_apply_state because of
> + * !state->enabled and so the two values in pwm->state might not be
> + * configured in hardware.
> + */
> + err = chip->ops->config(pwm->chip, pwm,
> + state->duty_cycle,
> + state->period);
> + if (err)
> + goto rollback;
> +
> + pwm->state.period = state->period;
> + pwm->state.duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
> - if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
> - state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
> - err = chip->ops->config(pwm->chip, pwm,
> - state->duty_cycle,
> - state->period);
> - if (err)
> - goto rollback;
> -
> - pwm->state.period = state->period;
> - pwm->state.duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
> - }
>
> if (!pwm->state.enabled) {
> err = chip->ops->enable(chip, pwm);
>
> I slightly prefer the latter patch, but if this is indeed your problem
> both should fix it for you.
>
> Can you give that a try please?
Works, too.
Thanks!
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
