| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <425691dbe49115f04dbe89c158bf6d1c@trvn.ru>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:46:31 +0500
From: Nikita Travkin <nikita@...n.ru>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com, lee.jones@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
sboyd@...nel.org, krzk@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
masneyb@...tation.org, sean.anderson@...o.com,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] pwm: Add clock based PWM output driver
Hi,
Uwe Kleine-König писал(а) 14.02.2022 23:43:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 09:23:42PM +0500, Nikita Travkin wrote:
>> Some systems have clocks exposed to external devices. If the clock
>> controller supports duty-cycle configuration, such clocks can be used as
>> pwm outputs. In fact PWM and CLK subsystems are interfaced with in a
>> similar way and an "opposite" driver already exists (clk-pwm). Add a
>> driver that would enable pwm devices to be used via clk subsystem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Travkin <nikita@...n.ru>
>> --
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Address Uwe's review comments:
>> - Round set clk rate up
>> - Add a description with limitations of the driver
>> - Disable and unprepare clock before removing pwmchip
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Use 64bit version of div round up
>> - Address Uwe's review comments:
>> - Reword the limitations to avoid incorrect claims
>> - Move the clk_enabled flag assignment
>> - Drop unnecessary statements
>> Changes in v5:
>> - add missed returns
>> ---
>> drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 10 +++
>> drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/pwm/pwm-clk.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 150 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-clk.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> index 21e3b05a5153..daa2491a4054 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> @@ -140,6 +140,16 @@ config PWM_BRCMSTB
>> To compile this driver as a module, choose M Here: the module
>> will be called pwm-brcmstb.c.
>>
>> +config PWM_CLK
>> + tristate "Clock based PWM support"
>> + depends on HAVE_CLK || COMPILE_TEST
>> + help
>> + Generic PWM framework driver for outputs that can be
>> + muxed to clocks.
>> +
>> + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>> + will be called pwm-clk.
>> +
>> config PWM_CLPS711X
>> tristate "CLPS711X PWM support"
>> depends on ARCH_CLPS711X || COMPILE_TEST
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> index 708840b7fba8..4a860103c470 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_BCM_KONA) += pwm-bcm-kona.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_BCM2835) += pwm-bcm2835.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_BERLIN) += pwm-berlin.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_BRCMSTB) += pwm-brcmstb.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CLK) += pwm-clk.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CLPS711X) += pwm-clps711x.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CRC) += pwm-crc.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CROS_EC) += pwm-cros-ec.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-clk.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-clk.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..e503337ad055
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-clk.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/*
>> + * Clock based PWM controller
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (c) 2021 Nikita Travkin <nikita@...n.ru>
>> + *
>> + * This is an "adapter" driver that allows PWM consumers to use
>> + * system clocks with duty cycle control as PWM outputs.
>> + *
>> + * Limitations:
>> + * - Glitches are possible when new pwm state is applied.
>> + * - Due to the fact that exact behavior depends on the underlying
>> + * clock driver, various limitations are possible.
>> + * - Period depends on the clock and, in general, not guaranteed.
>
> This sentence is broken.
>
Here what I mean is that the clock driver might e.g. have a lookup table
for some rates and will only set one close to the requested ones.
(Extreme scenario is that only one rate is allowed in the lookup table,
which is a real possibility for some platforms that I think this driver
will be used with, the lookup may need to be changed for those clocks)
I will reword this like:
Some clock drivers may only pick the closest available rate
and not the exact requested one. Because of this, exact period
is not guaranteed.
Thanks,
Nikita
>> + * - Underlying clock may not be able to give 0% or 100% duty cycle
>> + * (constant off or on), exact behavior will depend on the clock.
>> + * - When the PWM is disabled, the clock will be disabled as well,
>> + * line state will depend on the clock.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/math64.h>
>> +#include <linux/err.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
>> +
>> +struct pwm_clk_chip {
>> + struct pwm_chip chip;
>> + struct clk *clk;
>> + bool clk_enabled;
>> +};
>> +
>> +#define to_pwm_clk_chip(_chip) container_of(_chip, struct pwm_clk_chip, chip)
>> +
>> +static int pwm_clk_apply(struct pwm_chip *pwm_chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> + const struct pwm_state *state)
>> +{
>> + struct pwm_clk_chip *chip = to_pwm_clk_chip(pwm_chip);
>> + int ret;
>> + u32 rate;
>> + u64 period = state->period;
>> + u64 duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
>> +
>> + if (!state->enabled) {
>> + if (pwm->state.enabled) {
>> + clk_disable(chip->clk);
>> + chip->clk_enabled = false;
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> + } else if (!pwm->state.enabled) {
>> + ret = clk_enable(chip->clk);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + chip->clk_enabled = true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + rate = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(NSEC_PER_SEC, period);
>> + ret = clk_set_rate(chip->clk, rate);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
>> + duty_cycle = period - duty_cycle;
>> +
>> + return clk_set_duty_cycle(chip->clk, duty_cycle, period);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct pwm_ops pwm_clk_ops = {
>> + .apply = pwm_clk_apply,
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int pwm_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct pwm_clk_chip *chip;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!chip)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + chip->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>> + if (IS_ERR(chip->clk))
>> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(chip->clk),
>> + "Failed to get clock\n");
>> +
>> + chip->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + chip->chip.ops = &pwm_clk_ops;
>> + chip->chip.npwm = 1;
>> +
>> + ret = clk_prepare(chip->clk);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Failed to prepare clock\n");
>> +
>> + ret = pwmchip_add(&chip->chip);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Failed to add pwm chip\n");
>
> As was already pointed out, here is some error cleanup necessary.
>
>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chip);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Otherwise looks good.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists