Message-ID: <YLUK8GXHaBYyVe1R@workstation.tuxnet>
Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 18:12:32 +0200
From:   Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pwm: core: Support new usage_power setting in PWM
 state

On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 01:18:31AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Clemens,
> 
> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 05:47:58PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 05:03:17PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > > > index 5bb90af4997e..5a73251d28e3 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> > > > @@ -54,12 +54,17 @@ enum {
> > > >   * @duty_cycle: PWM duty cycle (in nanoseconds)
> > > >   * @polarity: PWM polarity
> > > >   * @enabled: PWM enabled status
> > > > + * @usage_power: If set, the PWM driver is only required to maintain the power
> > > > + *               output but has more freedom regarding signal form.
> > > > + *               If supported, the signal can be optimized, for example to
> > > > + *               improve EMI by phase shifting individual channels.
> > > >   */
> > > >  struct pwm_state {
> > > >  	u64 period;
> > > >  	u64 duty_cycle;
> > > >  	enum pwm_polarity polarity;
> > > >  	bool enabled;
> > > > +	bool usage_power;
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > 
> > > If we really want to support this usecase, I would prefer to not have it
> > > in pwm_state because this concept is not a property of the wave form. So
> > > for a driver it doesn't really make sense to set this flag in
> > > .get_state().
> > 
> > It is related to the wave form in so far as it allows the driver to
> > change the wave form as long as the power output remains the same.
> 
> Yes, the thing I wanted to express is: usage_power is a software thing.
> Just from reading the hardware registers you can never know if
> usage_power is set or not. So it is conceptually slightly different than
> the other members of pwm_state which all are represented 1:1 in
> hardware.
> 
> > > Maybe it makes more sense to put this in a separate argument for a
> > > variant of pwm_apply_state? something like:
> > > 
> > > 	int pwm_apply_state_transition(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state, const struct pwm_state_transition *transition);
> > > 
> > > and pwm_state_transition can then contain something like this usage
> > > power concept and maybe also a sync flag that requests that the call
> > > should only return when the new setting is active and maybe also a
> > > complete_period flag that requests that the currently running period
> > > must be completed before the requested setting is implemented.
> > > 
> > > OTOH the information "I only care about the relative duty cycle" is
> > > relevant longer than during the transition to a new setting. (So if
> > > there are two consumers and one specified to be only interested in the
> > > relative duty cycle, the other might be allowed to change the common
> > > period.)
> > 
> > As you said, usage_power does not only apply to one state transition.
> > 
> > > Having said that, I don't like the proposed names. Neither "usage_power"
> > > nor "pwm_apply_state_transition".
> > > 
> > > In a non-representative survey among two hardware engineers and one
> > > software engineer who already contributed to PWM (!= me) I found out
> > > that these three have an intuitive right understanding of
> > > "allow-phase-shift" but have no idea what "usage-power" could mean.
> > 
> > One advantage of usage_power is that it is not limited to phase
> > shifting. Drivers could do other optimizations as long as the power
> > output remains the same.
> 
> Freedom you give to the lowlevel driver might be a burden to the
> consumer. I think it makes sense to split the concept into:
> 
> 	PWM_ALLOW_PHASE_SHIFT		1
> 	PWM_SET_RELATIVE_DUTY		2
> 	PWM_SET_POWER			(PWM_ALLOW_PHASE_SHIFT | PWM_SET_RELATIVE_DUTY)
> 
> This way a consumer (e.g. a clock driver) who doesn't care about the
> phase shift but wants a fixed period can specify that, and if a consumer
> really only cares about the emitted power that's possible, too.
> 
> And given that your driver actually only implements a phase shift I
> suggest not to generalize more than necessary here; also because the
> semantic of usage-power isn't well defined. So this is something where I
> agree to Thierry: Let's not solve a problem we don't have. (Though he
> comes to a different conclusion here.)
> 
> > > On a side note: The hardware guys noted that it might make sense to
> > > align the shifted phases. i.e. instead of shifting channel i by i *
> > > period/16, it might be better to let the 2nd channel get active when the
> > > first gets inactive. (i.e. try to keep the count of active channels
> > > constant).
> > 
> > I am not sure what you mean exactly, because the duty cycles of the
> > 16 outputs are not necessarily the same and can all be active at the
> > same time. The idea is to spread the edges out as evenly as possible.
> > Shifting them by period/16 is the best way to smoothen the current
> > spikes in my opinion and the implementation is also very simple.
> 
> Yes, the algorithm needed to satisfy this wish is more complicated. And
> maybe it even isn't possible to implement it in a sane way, I didn't
> think about it much. I just believed them that if you have two channels
> that run at 50% it's better to have a phase shift of 50% between them
> than 6.25%. Maybe it makes sense to align the start of channel #i+1 (if
> allowed) to the end of channel #i to already get a better behaviour on
> average than the fixed offset depending on the channel number.
> 
> > > And as already mentioned earlier I still think we should define the
> > > concept of "usage power" better. It should be clearly defined for a
> > > driver author which setting they should pick for a given request. This
> > > removes surprises for consumers and guessing for lowlevel driver
> > > authors. Also a uniform policy brings conflicts better to light.
> > > (Something like driver A does the right thing for consumer C and driver
> > > B makes it right for D. But once D tries to use A things break. (And
> > > then maybe A is changed to fit D, and C doesn't object because they
> > > don't read the pwm list resulting in a breakage for C later.))
> > 
> > I added documentation and comments to the header file as a first step
> > but we can always improve them.
> 
> In my book the documentation is inadequate because it doesn't define how
> a driver should behave and so doesn't define what the consumer can
> expect. With your description all settings I suggested in
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210413175631.pwbynvwmnn7oog4m@pengutronix.de
> are allowed. I don't think this is a good idea.
> 
> And given that all people I talked to about "usage-power" were unable to
> correctly guess its semantic, I'm convinced that we need a better name.
> This is something you cannot outweigh with documentation -- most people
> won't read it anyway.

Thierry: Would be great to get your input on this.

Thanks,
Clemens

Powered by blists - more mailing lists