| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1437114955.21534.15.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:35:55 +0800
From: YH Huang <yh.huang@...iatek.com>
To: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
CC: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>, <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND..." <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
srv_heupstream <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Sascha Hauer" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
<yh.huang@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] pwm: add MediaTek display PWM driver support
On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 01:18 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44 AM, YH Huang <yh.huang@...iatek.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 23:21 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:17 PM, YH Huang <yh.huang@...iatek.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 14:54 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:38 PM, YH Huang <yh.huang@...iatek.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 23:59 +0800, YH Huang wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 18:19 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:04 PM, YH Huang <yh.huang@...iatek.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> >> >> > > +static int mtk_disp_pwm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >> >> >> > > +{
> >> >> >> > > + struct mtk_disp_pwm *mdp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >> >> >> > > +
> >> >> >> > > + clk_disable_unprepare(mdp->clk_main);
> >> >> >> > > + clk_disable_unprepare(mdp->clk_mm);
> >> >> >> > > +
> >> >> >> > > + return 0;
> >> >> >> > > +}
> >> >> >> > > +
> >> >> >> > > +static int mtk_disp_pwm_resume(struct device *dev)
> >> >> >> > > +{
> >> >> >> > > + struct mtk_disp_pwm *mdp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >> >> >> > > + int ret;
> >> >> >> > > +
> >> >> >> > > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(mdp->clk_main);
> >> >> >> > > + if (ret < 0)
> >> >> >> > > + return ret;
> >> >> >> > > +
> >> >> >> > > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(mdp->clk_mm);
> >> >> >> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> >> >> >> > > + clk_disable_unprepare(mdp->clk_main);
> >> >> >> > > + return ret;
> >> >> >> > > + }
> >> >> >> > > +
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Don't you also have to restore the PWM rate and frequency?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Is it possible to save power at runtime by leaving mdp->clk_mm enabled
> >> >> >> > (to generate the PWM signal), but disable mdp->clk_main (clock
> >> >> >> > required to access PWM registers)?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The pwm-backlight driver will restore the data.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> After I try to disable anyone of the two clocks at runtime, the
> >> >> >> backlight doesn't work well(no immediate update or losing backlight).
> >> >> >> So we need to keep both clock enabled.
> >>
> >> Do you mean you see backlight glitch because the clocks / backlight
> >> were *already on* during the first config (Perhaps left on by the
> >> bootloader)?
> >> I don't know how to solve that problem.
> >> Maybe Thierry does.
> >>
> >> In any case, this is a minor issue; we really shouldn't hold up
> >> landing the driver to optimize when the clocks are enabled/disabled
> >> :-). I'm happy enough with what you have in this patch.
> >
> > Sorry for my terrible expression. Let me try again.
> > 1. We want to disable unnecessary clock at runtime.
> > But, I get backlight glitch when I disable clk_main or clk_mm in
> > mtk_disp_pwm_config(). So both clocks are necessary and we don't disable
> > them at runtime.
> >
> > 2. Because pwm-backlight driver calls mtk_disp_pwm_config() before
> > mtk_disp_pwm_enable(), we will lose the first config if clocks are
> > enabled in mtk_disp_pwm_enable(). I prefer to enable clocks in probe
> > function. Samsung did the same way in their pwm driver.
>
> I don't understand why you will "lose the first config if clocks are
> enabled in mtk_disp_pwm_enable(). I don't believe registers will lose
> their values just because you turn enable/disable clocks.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear with what I was proposing which is something like this:
>
> mtk_disp_pwm_config()
> {
> clk_enable();
> /* write registers */
> clk_disable();
> }
>
> mtk_disp_enable()
> {
> clk_enable();
> /* write enable bit */
> }
>
> mtk_disp_disable()
> {
> /* clear enable bit */
> clk_disable();
> }
>
>
> In this way, if mtk_disp_pwm_config() is called when the pwm is
> disabled, we will temporarily enable the clocks long enough to update
> the register values. These values should take effect the next time
> the PWM is enabled. We then disable the clocks and wait for the PWM
> to be enabled.
>
> If mtk_disp_pwm_config() is called when the pwm is already enabled, we
> will increment the enable count on the clocks, but then we decrement
> it again immediately.
I think there is something wrong about mdp->clk_mm(generate the PWM
signal) and mdp->clk_main(access PWM registers).
If we want to write the register, we should enable both clocks before.
I try it in this way.
mtk_disp_pwm_config()
{
clk_enable(mdp->clk_main);
clk_enable(mdp->clk_mm);
/* write registers */
clk_disable(mdp->clk_mm);
clk_disable(mdp->clk_main);
}
with
A:
mtk_disp_enable()
{
clk_enable(mdp->clk_main);
clk_enable(mdp->clk_mm);
/* write enable bit */
clk_disable(mdp->clk_mm);
}
or
B:
mtk_disp_enable()
{
clk_enable(mdp->clk_main);
clk_enable(mdp->clk_mm);
/* write enable bit */
clk_disable(mdp->clk_main);
}
I both get backlight glitch with "A" or "B".
So I think we should keep clocks enabled.
Regards,
YH Huang
--
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