Message-ID: <20190321091950.tkzem7cbgvtynr5m@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:19:50 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>
Cc:     "thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "stefan@...er.ch" <stefan@...er.ch>,
        "otavio@...ystems.com.br" <otavio@...ystems.com.br>,
        Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>,
        "schnitzeltony@...il.com" <schnitzeltony@...il.com>,
        "jan.tuerk@...rion.com" <jan.tuerk@...rion.com>,
        Robin Gong <yibin.gong@....com>,
        "linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 2/5] pwm: Add i.MX TPM PWM driver support

Hello,

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:47:57AM +0000, Anson Huang wrote:
> i.MX7ULP has TPM(Low Power Timer/Pulse Width Modulation Module)
> inside, it can support multiple PWM channels, all the channels
> share same counter and period setting, but each channel can
> configure its duty and polarity independently.
> 
> There are several TPM modules in i.MX7ULP, the number of channels
> in TPM modules are different, it can be read from each TPM module's
> PARAM register.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>
> ---
> changes since V7:
> 	- improve prescale computation;
> 	- improve some register definitions;
> 	- remove unnecessary check for period count check;
> 	- improve function parameter to use pointer instead of value;
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/Kconfig       |  11 ++
>  drivers/pwm/Makefile      |   1 +
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c | 435 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 447 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> index 54f8238..3ea0391 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> @@ -210,6 +210,17 @@ config PWM_IMX27
>  	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>  	  will be called pwm-imx27.
>  
> +config PWM_IMX_TPM
> +	tristate "i.MX TPM PWM support"
> +	depends on ARCH_MXC || COMPILE_TEST
> +	depends on HAVE_CLK && HAS_IOMEM
> +	help
> +	  Generic PWM framework driver for i.MX7ULP TPM module, TPM's full
> +	  name is Low Power Timer/Pulse Width Modulation Module.
> +
> +	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> +	  will be called pwm-imx-tpm.
> +
>  config PWM_JZ4740
>  	tristate "Ingenic JZ47xx PWM support"
>  	depends on MACH_INGENIC
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> index 448825e..c368599 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_HIBVT)		+= pwm-hibvt.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMG)		+= pwm-img.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX1)		+= pwm-imx1.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX27)		+= pwm-imx27.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX_TPM)	+= pwm-imx-tpm.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_JZ4740)	+= pwm-jz4740.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LP3943)	+= pwm-lp3943.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LPC18XX_SCT)	+= pwm-lpc18xx-sct.o
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..0efea36
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,435 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright 2018-2019 NXP.
> + *
> + * Limitations:
> + * - The TPM counter and period counter are shared between
> + *   multiple channels, so all channels should use same period
> + *   settings.

What about:

 - Not all parameters to change the period length can be changed
   atomically. The counter must be stopped to change SC.PS.

 - Changes to polarity cannot be latched at the time of the next period
   start.

?

> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/log2.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_PARAM	0x4
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_GLOBAL	0x8
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_SC		0x10
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CNT		0x14
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD		0x18
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC(n)	(0x20 + (n) * 0x8)
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnV(n)	(0x24 + (n) * 0x8)
> +
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_PARAM_CHAN			GENMASK(7, 0)
> +
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_PS			GENMASK(2, 0)
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CMOD			GENMASK(4, 3)
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CMOD_INC_EVERY_CLK	FIELD_PREP(PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CMOD, 1)
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CPWMS			BIT(5)
> +
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_CHF	BIT(7)
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_MSB	BIT(5)
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_MSA	BIT(4)
> +
> +/*
> + * The reference manual describes this field as two separate bits. The
> + * samantic of the two bits isn't orthogonal though, so they are treated
> + * together as a 2-bit field here.
> + */
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS	GENMASK(3, 2)
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS_POLARITY_INVERSED	0x1
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS_INVERSED	FIELD_PREP(PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS, 1)
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS_NORMAL	FIELD_PREP(PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS, 2)
> +
> +
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD_WIDTH	16
> +#define PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD_MOD	GENMASK(PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD_WIDTH - 1, 0)
> +
> +struct imx_tpm_pwm_chip {
> +	struct pwm_chip chip;
> +	struct clk *clk;
> +	void __iomem *base;
> +	struct mutex lock;
> +	u32 user_count;
> +	u32 enable_count;
> +	u32 real_period;
> +};
> +
> +struct imx_tpm_pwm_param {
> +	u8 prescale;
> +	u32 mod;
> +};
> +
> +static inline struct imx_tpm_pwm_chip *to_imx_tpm_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> +{
> +	return container_of(chip, struct imx_tpm_pwm_chip, chip);
> +}
> +
> +static int pwm_imx_tpm_round_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> +				   struct imx_tpm_pwm_param *p,
> +				   struct pwm_state *state,
> +				   struct pwm_state *real_state)
> +{
> +	struct imx_tpm_pwm_chip *tpm = to_imx_tpm_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	u32 rate, prescale, period_count, clock_unit;
> +	u64 tmp;
> +
> +	rate = clk_get_rate(tpm->clk);
> +	tmp = (u64)state->period * rate;
> +	clock_unit = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> +	if (clock_unit <= PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD_MOD)
> +		prescale = 0;
> +	else
> +		prescale = ilog2(clock_unit) + 1 - PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD_WIDTH;
> +
> +	if ((!FIELD_FIT(PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_PS, prescale)))
> +		return -ERANGE;
> +	p->prescale = prescale;
> +
> +	period_count = (clock_unit + ((1 << prescale) >> 1)) >> prescale;
> +	p->mod = period_count;
> +
> +	/* calculate real period HW can support */
> +	tmp = (u64)period_count << prescale;
> +	tmp *= NSEC_PER_SEC;
> +	real_state->period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, rate);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * if eventually the PWM output is inactive, either
> +	 * duty cycle is 0 or status is disabled, need to
> +	 * make sure the output pin is inactive.
> +	 */
> +	if (!state->enabled)
> +		real_state->duty_cycle = 0;
> +	else
> +		real_state->duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;

You're maybe lying about the duty cycle here. Also it would be more
consistent to calculate the value to be written into the CnV register
that defines the duty cycle here.

Regarding the period computation I'm happy with this function. Unless I
miss something this function is idempotent (i.e. doing

	pwm_imx_tpm_round_state(chip, &p, some_state, &real_state1);
	pwm_imx_tpm_round_state(chip, &p, &real_state1, &real_state2);

results in real_state1 == real_state2) given that
clk_get_rate(tpm->clk) < NSEC_PER_SEC.

> +	real_state->polarity = state->polarity;
> +	real_state->enabled = state->enabled;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

A comment here noting that pwm_imx_tpm_setup_period is supposed to be
called with the mutex hold would be good here.

> +static void pwm_imx_tpm_setup_period(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> +				     struct imx_tpm_pwm_param *p)
> +{
> +	struct imx_tpm_pwm_chip *tpm = to_imx_tpm_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	u32 val, saved_cmod, cur_prescale;
> +
> +	/* make sure counter is disabled for programming prescale */

@Thierry: What is your thought here? IMHO this should only be allowed if
all affected PWMs are off.

> +	val = readl(tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_SC);
> +	saved_cmod = FIELD_GET(PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CMOD, val);
> +	cur_prescale = FIELD_GET(PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_PS, val);
> +	if (saved_cmod && cur_prescale != p->prescale) {
> +		val &= ~PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CMOD;
> +		writel(val, tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_SC);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* set TPM counter prescale */
> +	val &= ~PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_PS;
> +	val |= FIELD_PREP(PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_PS, p->prescale);
> +	writel(val, tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_SC);
> +
> +	/* restore the clock mode if necessary */
> +	if (saved_cmod && cur_prescale != p->prescale) {
> +		val |= FIELD_PREP(PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CMOD, saved_cmod);
> +		writel(val, tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_SC);
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * set period count:
> +	 * according to RM, the MOD register is updated immediately
> +	 * if CMOD[1:0] = 2b'00. if CMOD[1:0] != 2b'00, then MOD
> +	 * register is updated according to the CPWMS bit, that is:
> +	 *
> +	 * if the selected mode is not CPWM then MOD register is
> +	 * updated after MOD register was written and the TPM
> +	 * counter changes from MOD to zero.
> +	 *
> +	 * if the selected mode is CPWM then MOD register is updated
> +	 * after MOD register was written and the TPM counter changes
> +	 * from MOD to (MOD – 1).
> +	 */
> +	writel(p->mod, tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD);
> +}
> +
> +static void pwm_imx_tpm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> +				  struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +				  struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct imx_tpm_pwm_chip *tpm = to_imx_tpm_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	u32 rate, val, prescale;
> +	u64 tmp;
> +
> +	/* get period */
> +	state->period = tpm->real_period;
> +
> +	/* get duty cycle */
> +	rate = clk_get_rate(tpm->clk);
> +	val = readl(tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_SC);
> +	prescale = FIELD_GET(PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_PS, val);
> +	tmp = readl(tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_CnV(pwm->hwpwm));
> +	tmp = (tmp << prescale) * NSEC_PER_SEC;
> +	state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, rate);
> +
> +	/* get polarity */
> +	val = readl(tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC(pwm->hwpwm));
> +	if (FIELD_GET(PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS, val) ==
> +	    PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> +		state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
> +	else
> +		/*
> +		 * Assume reserved values (2b00 and 2b11) to yield
> +		 * normal polarity.

Given that this driver writes PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS = 2b00 in some
situations assuming that this results in an constant inactive output,
this should be recognized here. (Not entirely sure the output is
inactive because of only PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS = 2b00.)

> +		 */
> +		state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> +
> +	/* get channel status */
> +	state->enabled = FIELD_GET(PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS, val) ? true : false;
> +}
> +
> +static void pwm_imx_tpm_apply_hw(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> +				 struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +				 struct pwm_state *state)

pwm_imx_tpm_apply_hw is called with the mutex hold. Is this necessary?
Please either call it without the mutex or annotate the function that
the caller is supposed to hold it.

> +{
> +	struct imx_tpm_pwm_chip *tpm = to_imx_tpm_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	struct pwm_state c;
> +	u32 val, sc_val;
> +	u64 tmp;
> +
> +	pwm_imx_tpm_get_state(chip, pwm, &c);
> +
> +	if (state->duty_cycle != c.duty_cycle) {
> +		/* set duty counter */
> +		tmp = readl(tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD) & PWM_IMX_TPM_MOD_MOD;
> +		tmp *= state->duty_cycle;
> +		val = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, state->period);
> +		writel(val, tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_CnV(pwm->hwpwm));

How does this affect a currently running PWM? Consider it runs at
duty_cycle=500 + period=1000 and now should change to duty_cycle=700 +
period=800. Can it happen that we see a or even several periods with
duty_cycle=700 and period=1000?

> +	}
> +
> +	if (state->enabled != c.enabled) {

If the PWM was already on and is changed to another enabled state,
you're ignoring the (maybe) new polarity here.

> +		/*
> +		 * set polarity (for edge-aligned PWM modes)
> +		 *
> +		 * ELS[1:0] = 2b10 yields normal polarity behaviour,
> +		 * ELS[1:0] = 2b01 yields inversed polarity.
> +		 * The other values are reserved.
> +		 *
> +		 * polarity settings will enabled/disable output status
> +		 * immediately, so if the channel is disabled, need to
> +		 * make sure MSA/MSB/ELS are set to 0 which means channel
> +		 * disabled.
> +		 */
> +		val = readl(tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC(pwm->hwpwm));
> +		val &= ~(PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS | PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_MSA |
> +			 PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_MSB);
> +		sc_val = readl(tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_SC);
> +		if (state->enabled) {
> +			val |= PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_MSB;
> +			val |= (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) ?
> +				PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS_NORMAL :
> +				PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC_ELS_INVERSED;
> +			if (++tpm->enable_count == 1) {
> +				/* start TPM counter */
> +				sc_val |= PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CMOD_INC_EVERY_CLK;
> +				writel(sc_val, tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_SC);
> +			}
> +		} else {
> +			if (--tpm->enable_count == 0) {
> +				/* stop TPM counter */
> +				sc_val &= ~PWM_IMX_TPM_SC_CMOD;
> +				writel(sc_val, tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_SC);
> +			}
> +		}
> +		writel(val, tpm->base + PWM_IMX_TPM_CnSC(pwm->hwpwm));
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static int pwm_imx_tpm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> +			      struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +			     struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct imx_tpm_pwm_chip *tpm = to_imx_tpm_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	struct imx_tpm_pwm_param param;
> +	struct pwm_state real_state;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = pwm_imx_tpm_round_state(chip, &param, state, &real_state);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&tpm->lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * TPM counter is shared by multiple channels, so
> +	 * prescale and period can NOT be modified when
> +	 * there are multiple channels in use with different
> +	 * period settings.
> +	 */
> +	if (real_state.period != tpm->real_period) {
> +		if (tpm->user_count > 1) {
> +			ret = -EBUSY;
> +			goto exit;
> +		}
> +
> +		pwm_imx_tpm_setup_period(chip, &param);
> +		tpm->real_period = real_state.period;
> +	}
> +
> +	pwm_imx_tpm_apply_hw(chip, pwm, &real_state);
> +
> +exit:
> +	mutex_unlock(&tpm->lock);

.apply is supposed to sleep until the newly configured state is active.
This is missing here, right?

Best regards
Uwe

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists