Message-ID: <21428954-41cc-c01a-bca2-7eb19f444272@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 12:50:05 +0100
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Sandipan Patra <spatra@...dia.com>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de" <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC:     Bibek Basu <bbasu@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        "linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] pwm: tegra: dynamic clk freq configuration by PWM
 driver



On 22/05/2020 12:01, Sandipan Patra wrote:
> Thanks Jonathan,
> Please help reviewing further with my replies inline.
> 
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sandipan
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
>> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 3:54 PM
>> To: Sandipan Patra <spatra@...dia.com>; Thierry Reding
>> <treding@...dia.com>; robh+dt@...nel.org; u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de
>> Cc: Bibek Basu <bbasu@...dia.com>; Laxman Dewangan
>> <ldewangan@...dia.com>; linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org;
>> devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org; linux-
>> kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] pwm: tegra: dynamic clk freq configuration by PWM
>> driver
>>
>>
>> On 20/04/2020 16:54, Sandipan Patra wrote:
>>> Added support for dynamic clock freq configuration in pwm kernel driver.
>>> Earlier the pwm driver used to cache boot time clock rate by pwm clock
>>> parent during probe. Hence dynamically changing pwm frequency was not
>>> possible for all the possible ranges. With this change, dynamic
>>> calculation is enabled and it is able to set the requested period from
>>> sysfs knob provided the value is supported by clock source.
>>>
>>> Changes mainly have 2 parts:
>>>   - T186 and later chips [1]
>>>   - T210 and prior chips [2]
>>>
>>> For [1] - Changes implemented to set pwm period dynamically and
>>>           also checks added to allow only if requested period(ns) is
>>>           below or equals to higher range.
>>>
>>> For [2] - Only checks if the requested period(ns) is below or equals
>>>           to higher range defined by max clock limit. The limitation
>>>           in T210 or prior chips are due to the reason of having only
>>>           one pwm-controller supporting multiple channels. But later
>>>           chips have multiple pwm controller instances each having
>>> 	  single channel support.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sandipan Patra <spatra@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2:
>>> 1. Min period_ns calculation is moved to probe.
>>> 2. Added descriptioins for PWM register bits and regarding behaviour
>>>    of the controller when new configuration is applied or pwm is disabled.
>>> 3. Setting period with possible value when supplied period is below limit.
>>> 4. Corrected the earlier code comment:
>>>    plus 1 instead of minus 1 during pwm calculation
>>>
>>>  drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c | 110
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>  1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c index
>>> d26ed8f..7a36325 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
>>> @@ -4,8 +4,39 @@
>>>   *
>>>   * Tegra pulse-width-modulation controller driver
>>>   *
>>> - * Copyright (c) 2010, NVIDIA Corporation.
>>> - * Based on arch/arm/plat-mxc/pwm.c by Sascha Hauer
>>> <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2010-2020, NVIDIA Corporation.
>>> + *
>>> + * Overview of Tegra Pulse Width Modulator Register:
>>> + * 1. 13-bit: Frequency division (SCALE)
>>> + * 2. 8-bit : Puls division (DUTY)
>>> + * 3. 1-bit : Enable bit
>>> + *
>>> + * The PWM clock frequency is divided by 256 before subdividing it
>>> + based
>>> + * on the programmable frequency division value to generate the
>>> + required
>>> + * frequency for PWM output. The maximum output frequency that can be
>>> + * achieved is (max rate of source clock) / 256.
>>> + * i.e. if source clock rate is 408 MHz, maximum output frequency cab be:
>>> + * 408 MHz/256 = 1.6 MHz.
>>> + * This 1.6 MHz frequency can further be divided using SCALE value in PWM.
>>> + *
>>> + * PWM pulse width: 8 bits are usable [23:16] for varying pulse width.
>>> + * To achieve 100% duty cycle, program Bit [24] of this register to
>>> + * 1’b1. In which case the other bits [23:16] are set to don't care.
>>> + *
>>> + * Limitations and known facts:
>>> + * -	When PWM is disabled, the output is driven to 0.
>>> + * -	It does not allow the current PWM period to complete and
>>> + *	stops abruptly.
>>> + *
>>> + * -	If the register is reconfigured while pwm is running,
>>> + *	It does not let the currently running period to complete.
>>> + *
>>> + * -	Pulse width of the pwm can never be out of bound.
>>> + *	It's taken care at HW and SW
>>> + * -	If the user input duty is below limit, then driver sets it to
>>> + *	minimum possible value.
>>> + * -	If anything else goes wrong for setting duty or period,
>>> + *	-EINVAL is returned.
>>>   */
>>>
>>>  #include <linux/clk.h>
>>> @@ -41,6 +72,7 @@ struct tegra_pwm_chip {
>>>  	struct reset_control*rst;
>>>
>>>  	unsigned long clk_rate;
>>> +	unsigned long min_period_ns;
>>>
>>>  	void __iomem *regs;
>>>
>>> @@ -67,8 +99,9 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>> struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>>  			    int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct tegra_pwm_chip *pc = to_tegra_pwm_chip(chip);
>>> -	unsigned long long c = duty_ns, hz;
>>> -	unsigned long rate;
>>> +	unsigned long long p_width = duty_ns, period_hz;
>>> +	unsigned long rate, required_clk_rate;
>>> +	unsigned long pfm; /* Frequency divider */
>>
>> If it is not necessary to change the variable names, then I would prefer we keep
>> them as is as then changes would be less.
> 
> The earlier name was misleading so thought to use a specific name for
> which it can be helpful to follow up with the TRM. Since its recommended
> to retain the variable names, I will change this in next patch.

I was just wondering if was necessary to change 'c' to 'p_width'. This
could reduce the diff a bit.

>>
>>>  	u32 val = 0;
>>>  	int err;
>>>
>>> @@ -77,37 +110,77 @@ static int tegra_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>> struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>>  	 * per (1 << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH) cycles and make sure to round to the
>>>  	 * nearest integer during division.
>>>  	 */
>>> -	c *= (1 << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH);
>>> -	c = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(c, period_ns);
>>> +	p_width *= (1 << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH);
>>> +	p_width = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(p_width, period_ns);
>>>
>>> -	val = (u32)c << PWM_DUTY_SHIFT;
>>> +	val = (u32)p_width << PWM_DUTY_SHIFT;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 *  Period in nano second has to be <= highest allowed period
>>> +	 *  based on max clock rate of the pwm controller.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 *  higher limit = max clock limit >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH
>>> +	 *  lower limit = min clock limit >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH >>
>> PWM_SCALE_WIDTH
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (period_ns < pc->min_period_ns) {
>>> +		period_ns = pc->min_period_ns;
>>> +		pr_warn("Period is adjusted to allowed value (%d ns)\n",
>>> +				period_ns);
>>
>> I see that other drivers (pwm-img.c) consider this to be an error and return an
>> error. I wonder if adjusting the period makes sense here?
>>
>> I wonder if the handling of the min_period, should be a separate change?
> 
> I think I misunderstood one of the discussions in initial patch and added this change
> to apply the minimum possible value. Understood and will revert this change
> with returning error in such case.
> 
>>
>>> +	}
>>>
>>>  	/*
>>>  	 * Compute the prescaler value for which (1 << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH)
>>>  	 * cycles at the PWM clock rate will take period_ns nanoseconds.
>>>  	 */
>>> -	rate = pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH;
>>> +	if (pc->soc->num_channels == 1) {
>>
>> Are you using num_channels to determine if Tegra uses the BPMP? If so then the
>> above is not really correct, because num_channels is not really related to what is
>> being done here. So maybe you need a new SoC attribute in the soc data.
> 
> Here, it tries to find if pwm controller uses multiple channels (like in Tegra210 or older)
> or single channel for every pwm instance (i.e. T186, T194). If found multiple channels on
> a single controller then it is not correct to configure separate clock rates to each of the
> channels. So to distinguish the controller and channel type, num_channels is referred.

OK, then that makes sense. Maybe add this detail to the comment about
why num_channels is used.

>>
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * Rate is multiplied with 2^PWM_DUTY_WIDTH so that it
>> matches
>>> +		 * with the hieghest applicable rate that the controller can
>>
>> s/hieghest/highest/
> 
> Got it.
> 
>>
>>> +		 * provide. Any further lower value can be derived by setting
>>> +		 * PFM bits[0:12].
>>> +		 * Higher mark is taken since BPMP has round-up mechanism
>>> +		 * implemented.
>>> +		 */
>>> +		required_clk_rate =
>>> +			(NSEC_PER_SEC / period_ns) << PWM_DUTY_WIDTH;
>>> +
>>
>> Should be we checking the rate against the max rate supported?
> 
> If the request rate is beyond max supported rate, then the clk_set_rate will be failing
> and can get caught with error check followed by. Otherwise it will fail through fitting in
> the register's frequency divider filed. So I think it is not required to check against max rate.
> Please advise if I am not able to follow with what you are suggesting.

I think that it would be better to update the cached value so that it is
not incorrectly used else where by any future change. Furthermore, this
simplifies matters a bit because you can do the following for all
devices, but only update the clk_rate for those you wish to ...

    rate = pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH;

>>
>>> +		err = clk_set_rate(pc->clk, required_clk_rate);
>>> +		if (err < 0)
>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> +		rate = clk_get_rate(pc->clk) >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH;
>>
>> Do we need to update the pwm->clk_rate here?
> 
> This return rate is basically from the factor that requested clk_set_rate and the actual rate set
> mostly will have a little deviation based on the clock divider and other factors while setting
> a new rate. So capturing the actual rate for further calculation and conversion to Hz.
> Whenever it is required to use pwm->clk_rate we are no longer depending upon the cached value
> for num_channels == 1. So in my opinion it does not need to be cached. However it is kept
> stored for the SoCs having num_channels > 1.
> Please suggest if I am missing any case where we need to keep the value stored.

OK sounds fine.

>>
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * This is the case for SoCs who support multiple channels:
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * clk_set_rate() can not be called again in config because
>>> +		 * T210 or any prior chip supports one pwm-controller and
>>> +		 * multiple channels. Hence in this case cached clock rate
>>> +		 * will be considered which was stored during probe.
>>> +		 */
>>> +		rate = pc->clk_rate >> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH;
>>> +	}
>>>
>>>  	/* Consider precision in PWM_SCALE_WIDTH rate calculation */
>>> -	hz = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * NSEC_PER_SEC, period_ns);
>>> -	rate = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * rate, hz);
>>> +	period_hz = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * NSEC_PER_SEC,
>> period_ns);
>>> +	pfm = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(100ULL * rate, period_hz);
>>>
>>>  	/*
>>>  	 * Since the actual PWM divider is the register's frequency divider
>>> -	 * field minus 1, we need to decrement to get the correct value to
>>> +	 * field plus 1, we need to decrement to get the correct value to
>>>  	 * write to the register.
>>>  	 */
>>> -	if (rate > 0)
>>> -		rate--;
>>> +	if (pfm > 0)
>>> +		pfm--;
>>>
>>>  	/*
>>> -	 * Make sure that the rate will fit in the register's frequency
>>> +	 * Make sure that pfm will fit in the register's frequency
>>>  	 * divider field.
>>>  	 */
>>> -	if (rate >> PWM_SCALE_WIDTH)
>>> +	if (pfm >> PWM_SCALE_WIDTH)
>>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> -	val |= rate << PWM_SCALE_SHIFT;
>>> +	val |= pfm << PWM_SCALE_SHIFT;
>>>
>>>  	/*
>>>  	 * If the PWM channel is disabled, make sure to turn on the clock @@
>>> -205,6 +278,10 @@ static int tegra_pwm_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>>>  	 */
>>>  	pwm->clk_rate = clk_get_rate(pwm->clk);
>>>
>>> +	/* Set minimum limit of PWM period for the IP */
>>> +	pwm->min_period_ns =
>>> +	    (NSEC_PER_SEC / (pwm->soc->max_frequency >>
>> PWM_DUTY_WIDTH)) +
>>> +1;
>>> +
>>>  	pwm->rst = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(&pdev->dev, "pwm");
>>>  	if (IS_ERR(pwm->rst)) {
>>>  		ret = PTR_ERR(pwm->rst);
>>> @@ -313,4 +390,5 @@ module_platform_driver(tegra_pwm_driver);
>>>
>>>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>>  MODULE_AUTHOR("NVIDIA Corporation");
>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Sandipan Patra <spatra@...dia.com>");
>>>  MODULE_ALIAS("platform:tegra-pwm");
>>>
>>
>> --
>> nvpublic

-- 
nvpublic

Powered by blists - more mailing lists