Message-ID: <CAJ2_jOF7DxOo8_v2_218TCev057-jX65eTfB22u-rQ+wpXMUFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:44:10 +0530
From:   Yash Shah <yash.shah@...ive.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sachin Ghadi <sachin.ghadi@...ive.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/2] pwm: sifive: Add a driver for SiFive SoC PWM

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:42 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:50:42AM +0530, Yash Shah wrote:
> > Adds a PWM driver for PWM chip present in SiFive's HiFive Unleashed SoC.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wesley W. Terpstra <wesley@...ive.com>
> > [Atish: Various fixes and code cleanup]
> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yash Shah <yash.shah@...ive.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/Kconfig      |  10 +++
> >  drivers/pwm/Makefile     |   1 +
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c | 229 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 240 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > index 27e5dd4..da85557 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > @@ -378,6 +378,16 @@ config PWM_SAMSUNG
> >         To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> >         will be called pwm-samsung.
> >
> > +config PWM_SIFIVE
> > +     tristate "SiFive PWM support"
> > +     depends on OF
> > +     depends on COMMON_CLK
> > +     help
> > +       Generic PWM framework driver for SiFive SoCs.
> > +
> > +       To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> > +       will be called pwm-sifive.
> > +
> >  config PWM_SPEAR
> >       tristate "STMicroelectronics SPEAr PWM support"
> >       depends on PLAT_SPEAR
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > index 9c676a0..30089ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_RCAR)              += pwm-rcar.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_RENESAS_TPU)        += pwm-renesas-tpu.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_ROCKCHIP)   += pwm-rockchip.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_SAMSUNG)    += pwm-samsung.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_SIFIVE)     += pwm-sifive.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_SPEAR)              += pwm-spear.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_STI)                += pwm-sti.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_STM32)              += pwm-stm32.o
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..26913b6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2017-2018 SiFive
>
> If there is a publically available reference manual, please add a link
> to it here.

Ok will add the link to the reference manual.

>
> > + */
> > +#include <linux/clk.h>
> > +#include <linux/io.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > +
> > +/* Register offsets */
> > +#define REG_PWMCFG           0x0
> > +#define REG_PWMCOUNT         0x8
> > +#define REG_PWMS             0x10
> > +#define REG_PWMCMP0          0x20
> > +
> > +/* PWMCFG fields */
> > +#define BIT_PWM_SCALE                0
> > +#define BIT_PWM_STICKY               8
> > +#define BIT_PWM_ZERO_ZMP     9
> > +#define BIT_PWM_DEGLITCH     10
> > +#define BIT_PWM_EN_ALWAYS    12
> > +#define BIT_PWM_EN_ONCE              13
> > +#define BIT_PWM0_CENTER              16
> > +#define BIT_PWM0_GANG                24
> > +#define BIT_PWM0_IP          28
> > +
> > +#define SIZE_PWMCMP          4
> > +#define MASK_PWM_SCALE               0xf
> > +
> > +struct sifive_pwm_device {
> > +     struct pwm_chip chip;
> > +     struct notifier_block notifier;
> > +     struct clk *clk;
> > +     void __iomem *regs;
> > +     unsigned int approx_period;
> > +     unsigned int real_period;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static inline struct sifive_pwm_device *to_sifive_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *c)
> > +{
> > +     return container_of(c, struct sifive_pwm_device, chip);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sifive_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *dev,
> > +                         struct pwm_state *state)
> > +{
> > +     struct sifive_pwm_device *pwm = to_sifive_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +     unsigned int duty_cycle;
> > +     u32 frac;
> > +
> > +     duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
> > +     if (!state->enabled)
> > +             duty_cycle = 0;
>
> @Thierry: You see, this driver is cheating in the same way that I
> suggested to implement for imx.
>
> > +
> > +     frac = ((u64)duty_cycle << 16) / state->period;
>
> You must not use / to divide an u64 (unless you're on a 64 bit arch).

Will use div_u64().

>
> > +     frac = min(frac, 0xFFFFU);
>
> Also if real_period is for example 10 ms and the consumer requests
> duty=12 ms + period=100 ms, the hardware is configured for duty=1.2 ms +
> period=10 ms, right?

Right.

>
> You should also check polarity (and fail if it's !=
> PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED?).

Will add the check for polarity.

>
> If state->duty_cycle == state->period, we end up with frac = 0xffff.
> Does that mean the chip cannot output 100%?

No, it does not mean that. The chip can output 100%

>
> > +     writel(frac, pwm->regs + REG_PWMCMP0 + dev->hwpwm * SIZE_PWMCMP);
> > +
> > +     if (state->enabled) {
> > +             state->period = pwm->real_period;
> > +             state->duty_cycle = ((u64)frac * pwm->real_period) >> 16;
> > +     }
>
> Is this the expected behaviour of .apply to update *state? (I think it's
> a good idea, but I think it misses official blessing.)

Ok, will update the *state by calling get_state() from .apply

>
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
>
> How does a period start with this PWM hardware. The expected behaviour
> would be to start with low level for duty_cycle and then high for the
> rest of the period (given that the polarity is always inversed). Is this
> what the hardware actually does?

Yes, Correct.

>
> If the duty cycle changes, is the currently running period completed
> before the new setting gets active? If yes, .apply is supposed to block
> until the new setting is active.

No, it is not the case.

>
> > +static void sifive_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *dev,
> > +                              struct pwm_state *state)
> > +{
> > +     struct sifive_pwm_device *pwm = to_sifive_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +     u32 duty;
> > +
> > +     duty = readl(pwm->regs + REG_PWMCMP0 + dev->hwpwm * SIZE_PWMCMP);
> > +
> > +     state->period = pwm->real_period;
> > +     state->duty_cycle = ((u64)duty * pwm->real_period) >> 16;
> > +     state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
> > +     state->enabled = duty > 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct pwm_ops sifive_pwm_ops = {
> > +     .get_state = sifive_pwm_get_state,
> > +     .apply = sifive_pwm_apply,
> > +     .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct pwm_device *sifive_pwm_xlate(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> > +                                        const struct of_phandle_args *args)
> > +{
> > +     struct sifive_pwm_device *pwm = to_sifive_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +     struct pwm_device *dev;
> > +
> > +     if (args->args[0] >= chip->npwm)
> > +             return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > +
> > +     dev = pwm_request_from_chip(chip, args->args[0], NULL);
> > +     if (IS_ERR(dev))
> > +             return dev;
> > +
> > +     /* The period cannot be changed on a per-PWM basis */
> > +     dev->args.period   = pwm->real_period;
>
> A single space before the = please.

Sure.

>
> > +     dev->args.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> > +     if (args->args[1] & PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> > +             dev->args.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
> > +
> > +     return dev;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sifive_pwm_update_clock(struct sifive_pwm_device *pwm,
> > +                                 unsigned long rate)
> > +{
> > +     /* (1 << (16+scale)) * 10^9/rate = real_period */
> > +     unsigned long scale_pow = (pwm->approx_period * (u64)rate) / 1000000000;
> > +     int scale = clamp(ilog2(scale_pow) - 16, 0, 0xf);
> > +
> > +     writel((1 << BIT_PWM_EN_ALWAYS) | (scale << BIT_PWM_SCALE),
> > +            pwm->regs + REG_PWMCFG);
>
> What happens with the output if you don't set the BIT_PWM_EN_ALWAYS bit?

If BIT_PWM_EN_ALWAYS is set, the PWM counter increments continuously.
If not set, PWM counter will be disabled. There won't be PWM output unless
BIT_PWM_EN_ONCE is set. In that case it will generate single PWM cycle and stop.

>
> > +     pwm->real_period = (1000000000ULL << (16 + scale)) / rate;
>
> I suggest commenting this assignment with something like: "As scale <=
> 15 the shift operation cannot overflow." You must use div64_ul for
> dividing an unsigned long long variable. Can it happen that the result
> is too big to be hold by read_period (which is an unsigned int only)?

Ok. Will add that comment and also use div64_ul for division.
Regarding the result, I don't think so it will be big enough to
overflow read_period.

>
> Maybe add a dev_dbg with the new real_period here.

Sure, will add it.

>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sifive_pwm_clock_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > +                                  unsigned long event, void *data)
> > +{
> > +     struct clk_notifier_data *ndata = data;
> > +     struct sifive_pwm_device *pwm =
> > +             container_of(nb, struct sifive_pwm_device, notifier);
> > +
> > +     if (event == POST_RATE_CHANGE)
> > +             sifive_pwm_update_clock(pwm, ndata->new_rate);
> > +
> > +     return NOTIFY_OK;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sifive_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +     struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +     struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > +     struct sifive_pwm_device *pwm;
> > +     struct pwm_chip *chip;
> > +     struct resource *res;
> > +     int ret;
> > +
> > +     pwm = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pwm), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     if (!pwm)
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +     chip = &pwm->chip;
> > +     chip->dev = dev;
> > +     chip->ops = &sifive_pwm_ops;
> > +     chip->of_xlate = sifive_pwm_xlate;
> > +     chip->of_pwm_n_cells = 2;
> > +     chip->base = -1;
> > +     chip->npwm = 4;
> > +
> > +     ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "sifive,approx-period",
> > +                                &pwm->approx_period);
> > +     if (ret < 0) {
> > +             dev_err(dev, "Unable to read sifive,approx-period from DTS\n");
> > +             return ret;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > +     pwm->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> > +     if (IS_ERR(pwm->regs)) {
> > +             dev_err(dev, "Unable to map IO resources\n");
> > +             return PTR_ERR(pwm->regs);
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     pwm->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
> > +     if (IS_ERR(pwm->clk)) {
> > +             dev_err(dev, "Unable to find controller clock\n");
>
> Please don't emit an error message if PTR_ERR(pwm->clk) is
> -EPROBE_DEFER.

Will add an "if" check.

>
> > +             return PTR_ERR(pwm->clk);
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     /* Watch for changes to underlying clock frequency */
> > +     pwm->notifier.notifier_call = sifive_pwm_clock_notifier;
> > +     ret = clk_notifier_register(pwm->clk, &pwm->notifier);
> > +     if (ret) {
> > +             dev_err(dev, "failed to register clock notifier: %d\n", ret);
> > +             return ret;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     /* Initialize PWM config */
> > +     sifive_pwm_update_clock(pwm, clk_get_rate(pwm->clk));
>
> You're supposed to call clk_get_rate only after you enabled the clk.

Will fix this.

>
> > +     ret = pwmchip_add(chip);
> > +     if (ret < 0) {
> > +             dev_err(dev, "cannot register PWM: %d\n", ret);
> > +             clk_notifier_unregister(pwm->clk, &pwm->notifier);
> > +             return ret;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pwm);
> > +     dev_dbg(dev, "SiFive PWM chip registered %d PWMs\n", chip->npwm);
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sifive_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> > +{
> > +     struct sifive_pwm_device *pwm = platform_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +
> > +     clk_notifier_unregister(pwm->clk, &pwm->notifier);
> > +     return pwmchip_remove(&pwm->chip);
>
> In probe you setup the clk notifier before calling pwmchip_add. So it's
> a good habit to do it the other way round in .remove.

Will change the sequence.

>
> > +}
>
> You're not using the irq that according to the dt binding is required?!

Yes, currently there is no use.

>
> Best regards
> Uwe

Thanks for the comments!

>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Powered by blists - more mailing lists