| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:21:22 +0200
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/13] pwm: add support for sl28cpld PWM controller
Hi,
Am 2020-07-28 09:43, schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> Hello,
>
> just a few minor issues left:
thanks for the review.
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 01:18:27AM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sl28cpld.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sl28cpld.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..956fa09f3aba
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sl28cpld.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/*
>> + * sl28cpld PWM driver
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (c) 2020 Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
>> + *
>> + * There is no public datasheet available for this PWM core. But it
>> is easy
>> + * enough to be briefly explained. It consists of one 8-bit counter.
>> The PWM
>> + * supports four distinct frequencies by selecting when to reset the
>> counter.
>> + * With the prescaler setting you can select which bit of the counter
>> is used
>> + * to reset it. This implies that the higher the frequency the less
>> remaining
>> + * bits are available for the actual counter.
>> + *
>> + * Let cnt[7:0] be the counter, clocked at 32kHz:
>> + * +-----------+--------+--------------+-----------+
>> + * | prescaler | reset | counter bits | frequency |
>> + * +-----------+--------+--------------+-----------+
>> + * | 0 | cnt[7] | cnt[6:0] | 250Hz |
>> + * | 1 | cnt[6] | cnt[5:0] | 500Hz |
>> + * | 2 | cnt[5] | cnt[4:0] | 1kHz |
>> + * | 3 | cnt[4] | cnt[3:0] | 2kHz |
>> + * +-----------+--------+--------------+-----------+
>
> Very nice. I'd add a "period length" column, as this is what the PWM
> core uses.
>
> For your convenience (and as I created that table anyhow for further
> checking of the formulas below):
>
> * +-----------+--------+--------------+-----------+--------+
> * | prescaler | reset | counter bits | frequency | period |
> * | | | | | length |
> * +-----------+--------+--------------+-----------+--------+
> * | 0 | cnt[7] | cnt[6:0] | 250Hz | 4000ns |
> * | 1 | cnt[6] | cnt[5:0] | 500Hz | 2000ns |
> * | 2 | cnt[5] | cnt[4:0] | 1kHz | 1000ns |
> * | 3 | cnt[4] | cnt[3:0] | 2kHz | 500ns |
> * +-----------+--------+--------------+-----------+--------+
sure :)
>
>> + *
>> + * Limitations:
>> + * - The hardware cannot generate a 100% duty cycle if the prescaler
>> is 0.
>> + * - The hardware cannot atomically set the prescaler and the counter
>> value,
>> + * which might lead to glitches and inconsistent states if a write
>> fails.
>> + * - The counter is not reset if you switch the prescaler which leads
>> + * to glitches, too.
>> + * - The duty cycle will switch immediately and not after a complete
>> cycle.
>> + * - Depending on the actual implementation, disabling the PWM might
>> have
>> + * side effects. For example, if the output pin is shared with a
>> GPIO pin
>> + * it will automatically switch back to GPIO mode.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
>> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * PWM timer block registers.
>> + */
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL 0x00
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_ENABLE BIT(7)
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_PRESCALER_MASK GENMASK(1, 0)
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE 0x01
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE_MAX GENMASK(6, 0)
>> +
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_CLK 32000 /* 32 kHz */
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_MAX_DUTY_CYCLE(prescaler) (1 << (7 -
>> (prescaler)))
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_PERIOD(prescaler) \
>> + (NSEC_PER_SEC / SL28CPLD_PWM_CLK *
>> SL28CPLD_PWM_MAX_DUTY_CYCLE(prescaler))
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * We calculate the duty cycle like this:
>> + * duty_cycle_ns = pwm_cycle_reg * max_period_ns / max_duty_cycle
>> + *
>> + * With
>> + * max_period_ns = (1 << 7 - prescaler) / pwm_clk * NSEC_PER_SEC
>> + * max_duty_cycle = 1 << (7 - prescaler)
>
> If you don't need parenthesis in the max_period_ns around 7 -
> prescaler,
> you don't need them either in the max_duty_cycle line.
mhh this should be "1 << (7 - prescaler)" in both cases. So
max_period_ns is wrong:
max_period_ns = 1 << (7 - prescaler) / pwm_clk * NSEC_PER_SEC
>> + * this then simplifies to:
>> + * duty_cycle_ns = pwm_cycle_reg / pwm_clk * NSEC_PER_SEC
>> + */
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_TO_DUTY_CYCLE(reg) \
>> + (NSEC_PER_SEC / SL28CPLD_PWM_CLK * (reg))
>
> For those who copy from your driver maybe add a comment like:
>
> * NSEC_PER_SEC / SL28CPLD_PWM_CLK is integer here, so we're not
> loosing
> * precision by doing the division first.
ok.
>> +#define SL28CPLD_PWM_FROM_DUTY_CYCLE(duty_cycle) \
>> + (DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL((duty_cycle), NSEC_PER_SEC / SL28CPLD_PWM_CLK))
>> +
>> +struct sl28cpld_pwm {
>> + struct pwm_chip pwm_chip;
>> + struct regmap *regmap;
>> + u32 offset;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void sl28cpld_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>> + struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> + struct pwm_state *state)
>> +{
>> + struct sl28cpld_pwm *priv = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
>> + unsigned int reg;
>> + int prescaler;
>> +
>> + regmap_read(priv->regmap, priv->offset + SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL, ®);
>
> Would it make sense to hide this using e.g.:
>
> #define sl28cpkd_pwm_read(priv, reg, val) regmap_read((priv)->regmap,
> (priv)->offset + (reg), val)
>
> The line would then become:
>
> sl28cpkd_pwm_read(priv, SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL, ®);
>
> which is a bit prettier. Up to you to decide. If you do it, please do
> the same for write
I don't have a strong opinion on that. I can change it. Although there
will be checkpatch warning about multiple uses of the macro argument,
I'd presume.
>> + state->enabled = reg & SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_ENABLE;
>> +
>> + prescaler = FIELD_GET(SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_PRESCALER_MASK, reg);
>> + state->period = SL28CPLD_PWM_PERIOD(prescaler);
>> +
>> + regmap_read(priv->regmap, priv->offset + SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE, ®);
>> + state->duty_cycle = SL28CPLD_PWM_TO_DUTY_CYCLE(reg);
>> + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sl28cpld_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
>> pwm_device *pwm,
>> + const struct pwm_state *state)
>> +{
>> + struct sl28cpld_pwm *priv = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
>> + unsigned int cycle, prescaler;
>> + int ret;
>> + u8 ctrl;
>> +
>> + /* Polarity inversion is not supported */
>> + if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Calculate the prescaler. Pick the the biggest period that isn't
>> + * bigger than the requested period.
>> + */
>> + prescaler = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(SL28CPLD_PWM_PERIOD(0), state->period);
>> + prescaler = order_base_2(prescaler);
>> +
>> + if (prescaler > field_max(SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_PRESCALER_MASK))
>> + return -ERANGE;
>
> The calculation looks right.
> Did you check the generated code? Maybe using an if or switch here is
> more effective? (optional task for bonus points :-)
I varied between this and some if/switch. This hard to read IMHO (as
was your your ilog(n+1)+1), but you could easily change the range
of the prescaler without having to change this. Also if/switch
looked ugly too *g*. I'll check again.
>
>> + ctrl = FIELD_PREP(SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_PRESCALER_MASK, prescaler);
>> + if (state->enabled)
>> + ctrl |= SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_ENABLE;
>> +
>> + cycle = SL28CPLD_PWM_FROM_DUTY_CYCLE(state->duty_cycle);
>> + cycle = min_t(unsigned int, cycle,
>> SL28CPLD_PWM_MAX_DUTY_CYCLE(prescaler));
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Work around the hardware limitation. See also above. Trap 100%
>> duty
>> + * cycle if the prescaler is 0. Set prescaler to 1 instead. We don't
>> + * care about the frequency because its "all-one" in either case.
>> + *
>> + * We don't need to check the actual prescaler setting, because only
>> + * if the prescaler is 0 we can have this particular value.
>> + */
>> + if (cycle == SL28CPLD_PWM_MAX_DUTY_CYCLE(0)) {
>> + ctrl &= ~SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_PRESCALER_MASK;
>> + ctrl |= FIELD_PREP(SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_PRESCALER_MASK, 1);
>> + cycle = SL28CPLD_PWM_MAX_DUTY_CYCLE(1);
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, priv->offset + SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL,
>> ctrl);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + return regmap_write(priv->regmap, priv->offset + SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE,
>> (u8)cycle);
>
> This cast isn't needed, is it?
Due to the clamping, it is not, correct. I'll remove it.
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct pwm_ops sl28cpld_pwm_ops = {
>> + .apply = sl28cpld_pwm_apply,
>> + .get_state = sl28cpld_pwm_get_state,
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int sl28cpld_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct sl28cpld_pwm *priv;
>> + struct pwm_chip *chip;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (!pdev->dev.parent)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!priv)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + priv->regmap = dev_get_regmap(pdev->dev.parent, NULL);
>> + if (!priv->regmap)
>
> Error message here?
This shouldn't really happen and I put it into the same category
as the two above and report no error. But I can add it.
Generally, it looked to me that more and more drivers don't
really report errors anymore, but just return with an -EWHATEVER.
So if someone can shed some light here, I'm all ears.
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists