[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50366464.4070801@metafoo.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:12:04 +0200
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: Benoît Thébaudeau
<benoit.thebaudeau@...ansee.com>
CC: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@...onical.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: Call pwm_enable() before pwm_config()
On 08/23/2012 06:57 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:43:32 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> On 08/23/2012 04:19 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
>>> Some PWM drivers enable the clock of the PWM peripheral in
>>> pwm_enable(). Hence,
>>> for these drivers, a call to pwm_config() does not have any effect
>>> before
>>> pwm_enable() has been called.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the PWM users to make sure that they call
>>> pwm_enable() before
>>> pwm_config().
>>>
>>> This fixes the first setting of brightness through sysfs that had
>>> no effect with
>>> leds-pwm and the i.MX PWM driver.
>>
>> But isn't this a bug in the PWM peripheral driver? With this change
>> the PWM
>> will start with the old settings first. While this is not so much of
>> a problem
>> for a backlight (although it might cause a short flickering) it might
>> cause
>> problems for other applications, like using the PWM pin as a timing
>> generator.
>> In my opinion it's better to fix the PWM peripheral drivers which
>> have this
>> problem instead of trying to work around it in every user of the PWM
>> API.
>
> I don't know. See my detailed description of this issue here:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-August/115667.html
>
> Where the bug is depends on the detailed definition of the PWM API, which I
> don't find documented anywhere.
>
> If pwm_enable() means "start PWM timer with the configured settings", then the
> bug is in the drivers. If it means "enable the PWM peripheral so that we can
> work with it", then the bug is in the PWM users.
It really is the former. See the description of pwm_enable() in drivers/pwm/core.c
>
> I don't really have time to work on this, so I suggested this patch as a simple
> solution. Otherwise, it means reworking several PWM drivers for different
> hardware that is not available to everyone for testing.
>
> If we decide to only change the i.MX PWM driver, the fix would be:
> pwm_config()
> {
> save passed config in private data;
> if (pwm enabled)
> apply passed config;
> }
>
> pwm_enable()
> {
> if (!(pwm enabled)) {
> enable pwm ip clk;
> apply config from private data;
> }
> }
Another option is to enable the clock if it is disabled when the device is
configured. E.g. that's what tegra does.
>
> If we fix only this driver, we must not forget that the same issue probably
> exists with several other PWM drivers.
>
Since this seems to be a common pattern in a number of PWM drivers it might
make sense to simply add support for enabling/disabling a clk to the pwm core.
Or maybe just use the runtime pm API for this. This probably makes even more
sense and grab a reference to the pm context when the enable() is called,
release it when disable() is called and also grab it before calling the
device's config callback and release it afterward.
- Lars
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists