| 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: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:36:10 +0200
From: Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] pwm: Add support for the MSTAR MSC313 PWM
Hi,
Le mar. 27 sept. 2022 à 18:33, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> a écrit :
>
> Hello Romain, hello Daniel,
>
> adding Mark Brown to Cc: for the regmap stuff.
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 03:12:38PM +0200, Romain Perier wrote:
> > From: Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com>
> >
> > This adds support for the PWM block on the Mstar MSC313e SoCs and newer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>
> > ---
> > MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> > drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 9 ++
> > drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-msc313e.c | 269 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 280 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-msc313e.c
> >
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index 9d7f64dc0efe..c3b39b09097c 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -2439,6 +2439,7 @@ F: arch/arm/mach-mstar/
> > F: drivers/clk/mstar/
> > F: drivers/clocksource/timer-msc313e.c
> > F: drivers/gpio/gpio-msc313.c
> > +F: drivers/pwm/pwm-msc313e.c
> > F: drivers/rtc/rtc-msc313.c
> > F: drivers/watchdog/msc313e_wdt.c
> > F: include/dt-bindings/clock/mstar-*
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > index 60d13a949bc5..8049fd03a821 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> > @@ -372,6 +372,15 @@ config PWM_MESON
> > To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> > will be called pwm-meson.
> >
> > +config PWM_MSC313E
> > + tristate "MStar MSC313e PWM support"
> > + depends on ARCH_MSTARV7 || COMPILE_TEST
> > + help
> > + Generic PWM framework driver for MSTAR MSC313e.
> > +
> > + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> > + will be called pwm-msc313e.
> > +
> > config PWM_MTK_DISP
> > tristate "MediaTek display PWM driver"
> > depends on ARCH_MEDIATEK || COMPILE_TEST
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > index 7bf1a29f02b8..bc285c054f2a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> > @@ -62,4 +62,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_TWL) += pwm-twl.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_TWL_LED) += pwm-twl-led.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_VISCONTI) += pwm-visconti.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_VT8500) += pwm-vt8500.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_MSC313E) += pwm-msc313e.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_XILINX) += pwm-xilinx.o
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-msc313e.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-msc313e.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..a71f39ba66c3
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-msc313e.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,269 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2021 Daniel Palmer <daniel@...ngy.jp>
> > + * Copyright (C) 2022 Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/clk.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> > +
> > +#define DRIVER_NAME "msc313e-pwm"
> > +
> > +#define CHANNEL_OFFSET 0x80
> > +#define REG_DUTY 0x8
> > +#define REG_PERIOD 0x10
> > +#define REG_DIV 0x18
> > +#define REG_CTRL 0x1c
> > +#define REG_SWRST 0x1fc
> > +
> > +struct msc313e_pwm_channel {
> > + struct regmap_field *clkdiv;
> > + struct regmap_field *polarity;
> > + struct regmap_field *dutyl;
> > + struct regmap_field *dutyh;
> > + struct regmap_field *periodl;
> > + struct regmap_field *periodh;
> > + struct regmap_field *swrst;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct msc313e_pwm {
> > + struct regmap *regmap;
> > + struct pwm_chip pwmchip;
> > + struct clk *clk;
> > + struct msc313e_pwm_channel channels[];
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct msc313e_pwm_info {
> > + unsigned int channels;
> > +};
> > +
> > +#define to_msc313e_pwm(ptr) container_of(ptr, struct msc313e_pwm, pwmchip)
> > +
> > +static const struct regmap_config msc313e_pwm_regmap_config = {
> > + .reg_bits = 16,
> > + .val_bits = 16,
> > + .reg_stride = 4,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct msc313e_pwm_info msc313e_data = {
> > + .channels = 8,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct msc313e_pwm_info ssd20xd_data = {
> > + .channels = 4,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void msc313e_pwm_writecounter(struct regmap_field *low, struct regmap_field *high, u32 value)
> > +{
> > + /* The bus that connects the CPU to the peripheral registers splits 32 bit registers into
>
> Please fix the comment style to use /* on a line for itself. Also for
> comments staying below 80 chars per line is appreciated.
even if check-patch.pl --strict passed ? ^^
>
> > + * two 16bit registers placed 4 bytes apart. It's the hardware design they used. The counter
> > + * we are about to write has this contrainst.
>
> s/contrainst/contraint/
>
> I wonder if that could be abstracted by regmap?!
I had the same thought, not from what I have read/found, but perhaps
the regmap maintainer has an opinion.
>
> > + */
> > + regmap_field_write(low, value & 0xffff);
> > + regmap_field_write(high, value >> 16);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void msc313e_pwm_readcounter(struct regmap_field *low, struct regmap_field *high, u32 *value)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int val = 0;
> > +
> > + regmap_field_read(low, &val);
> > + *value = val;
> > + regmap_field_read(high, &val);
> > + *value = (val << 16) | *value;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int msc313e_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *device,
> > + int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> > +{
> > + struct msc313e_pwm *pwm = to_msc313e_pwm(chip);
> > + unsigned long long nspertick = DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(NSEC_PER_SEC, clk_get_rate(pwm->clk));
> > + struct msc313e_pwm_channel *channel = &pwm->channels[device->hwpwm];
> > + unsigned long long div = 1;
> > +
> > + /* Fit the period into the period register by prescaling the clk */
> > + while (DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(period_ns, nspertick) > 0x3ffff) {
>
> dividing by the result of a division looses precision. Also rounding
> down both divisions looks wrong.
Such cases are not supposed to be covered by PWM_DEBUG ? (because
everything passed with PWM_DEBUG)
>
> > + div++;
> > + if (div > (0xffff + 1)) {
> > + /* Force clk div to the maximum allowed value */
> > + div = 0xffff;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + nspertick = DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(nspertick, div);
> > + }
> > +
> > + regmap_field_write(channel->clkdiv, div - 1);
> > + msc313e_pwm_writecounter(channel->dutyl, channel->dutyh,
> > + DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(duty_ns, nspertick));
> > + msc313e_pwm_writecounter(channel->periodl, channel->periodh,
> > + DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(period_ns, nspertick));
> > + return 0;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int msc313e_pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *device,
> > + enum pwm_polarity polarity)
> > +{
> > + struct msc313e_pwm *pwm = to_msc313e_pwm(chip);
> > + struct msc313e_pwm_channel *channel = &pwm->channels[device->hwpwm];
> > + unsigned int pol = 0;
> > +
> > + if (polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> > + pol = 1;
> > + regmap_field_update_bits(channel->polarity, 1, pol);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int msc313e_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *device)
> > +{
> > + struct msc313e_pwm *pwm = to_msc313e_pwm(chip);
> > + struct msc313e_pwm_channel *channel = &pwm->channels[device->hwpwm];
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(pwm->clk);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + return regmap_field_write(channel->swrst, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int msc313e_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *device)
> > +{
> > + struct msc313e_pwm *pwm = to_msc313e_pwm(chip);
> > + struct msc313e_pwm_channel *channel = &pwm->channels[device->hwpwm];
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_field_write(channel->swrst, 1);
> > + clk_disable_unprepare(pwm->clk);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int msc313e_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > + const struct pwm_state *state)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (state->enabled) {
> > + if (!pwm->state.enabled) {
> > + ret = msc313e_pwm_enable(chip, pwm);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + msc313e_pwm_set_polarity(chip, pwm, state->polarity);
> > + msc313e_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
>
> Does the output emit a previous setting after msc313e_pwm_enable()? If
> so, please do the enable at the end.
>
> Does calling msc313e_pwm_set_polarity() and msc313e_pwm_config() have an
> immediate effect? Or is the currently running period completed?
>
> > + } else if (pwm->state.enabled) {
> > + ret = msc313e_pwm_disable(chip, pwm);
>
> How does the output behave on disable? Typical options are:
>
> - freezes where ever it currently is
> - goes to the inactive level
I let Daniel answer these questions.
>
> Does it complete the currently running period? Please answer these in a
> "Limitations:" section similar to e.g. pwm-sl28cpld.c and pwm-iqs620a.
>
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void msc313e_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *device,
>
> Please s/device/pwm/ to match the naming used in other drivers.
>
> > + struct pwm_state *state)
> > +{
> > + struct msc313e_pwm *pwm = to_msc313e_pwm(chip);
> > + struct msc313e_pwm_channel *channel = &pwm->channels[device->hwpwm];
> > + unsigned long long nspertick = DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(NSEC_PER_SEC, clk_get_rate(pwm->clk));
> > + unsigned int val = 0;
> > +
> > + regmap_field_read(channel->polarity, &val);
> > + state->polarity = val ? PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED : PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> > +
> > + regmap_field_read(channel->swrst, &val);
> > + state->enabled = val == 0 ? true : false;
> > +
> > + msc313e_pwm_readcounter(channel->dutyl, channel->dutyh, &val);
> > + state->duty_cycle = val * nspertick;
>
> Please do the division at the end. Consider val = 333335 and
> clk_get_rate() returning 666666667.
>
> Then the exact duty cycle would be 500002.49974999874 but you would
> calculate nspertick = 1 and so duty_cycle = 333335.
>
> Also you need to round up. Did you test your driver with PWM_DEBUG
> enabled?
Take a look at my cover letter, yeah I have tested everything with
PWM_DEBUG, everything passed ^^
The idea is that .get_state should return 500003 here to have
> apply ∘ get_state idempotent. As apply is supposed to round down to the
> next available setting, get_state has to round up.
>
> > + msc313e_pwm_readcounter(channel->periodl, channel->periodh, &val);
> > + state->period = val * nspertick;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct pwm_ops msc313e_pwm_ops = {
> > + .apply = msc313e_apply,
> > + .get_state = msc313e_get_state,
> > + .owner = THIS_MODULE
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int msc313e_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + const struct msc313e_pwm_info *match_data;
> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + struct msc313e_pwm *pwm;
> > + __iomem void *base;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + match_data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> > + if (!match_data)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> > + if (IS_ERR(base))
> > + return PTR_ERR(base);
> > +
> > + pwm = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(pwm, channels, match_data->channels), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Please don't use "pwm" as a name for your driver data variable. That
> name is reserved for struct pwm_device pointers. Something like "ddata"
> would be fine, but there is a wide variety in pwm driver land to choose
> from.
>
> > + if (!pwm)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + pwm->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
> > + if (IS_ERR(pwm->clk))
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pwm->clk), "Cannot get clk\n");
> > +
> > + pwm->regmap = devm_regmap_init_mmio(dev, base, &msc313e_pwm_regmap_config);
> > + if (IS_ERR(pwm->regmap))
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pwm->regmap), "Cannot get regmap\n");
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < match_data->channels; i++) {
> > + unsigned int offset = CHANNEL_OFFSET * i;
> > + struct reg_field div_clkdiv_field = REG_FIELD(offset + REG_DIV, 0, 7);
> > + struct reg_field ctrl_polarity_field = REG_FIELD(offset + REG_CTRL, 4, 4);
> > + struct reg_field dutyl_field = REG_FIELD(offset + REG_DUTY, 0, 15);
> > + struct reg_field dutyh_field = REG_FIELD(offset + REG_DUTY + 4, 0, 2);
> > + struct reg_field periodl_field = REG_FIELD(offset + REG_PERIOD, 0, 15);
> > + struct reg_field periodh_field = REG_FIELD(offset + REG_PERIOD + 4, 0, 2);
> > + struct reg_field swrst_field = REG_FIELD(REG_SWRST, i, i);
> > +
> > + pwm->channels[i].clkdiv = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, pwm->regmap,
> > + div_clkdiv_field);
> > + pwm->channels[i].polarity = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, pwm->regmap,
> > + ctrl_polarity_field);
> > + pwm->channels[i].dutyl = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, pwm->regmap, dutyl_field);
> > + pwm->channels[i].dutyh = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, pwm->regmap, dutyh_field);
> > + pwm->channels[i].periodl = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, pwm->regmap, periodl_field);
> > + pwm->channels[i].periodh = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, pwm->regmap, periodh_field);
> > + pwm->channels[i].swrst = devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, pwm->regmap, swrst_field);
> > +
> > + /* Channels are enabled on boot, disable it until the pwm subsystem re-enable it
> > + * explicitly
>
> You're supposed to keep the PWM running. (Consider a bootloader setting
> up a splash screen. You're probably killing the backlight here.) Note
> you need improved clk handling to do that right.
>
> > + */
> > + regmap_field_write(pwm->channels[i].swrst, 1);
> > + }
> > +
> > + pwm->pwmchip.dev = dev;
> > + pwm->pwmchip.ops = &msc313e_pwm_ops;
> > + pwm->pwmchip.npwm = match_data->channels;
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pwm);
>
> This is unused, please drop.
>
> > + return devm_pwmchip_add(dev, &pwm->pwmchip);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id msc313e_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "mstar,msc313e-pwm", .data = &msc313e_data },
> > + { .compatible = "mstar,ssd20xd-pwm", .data = &ssd20xd_data },
> > + {},
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, msc313e_pwm_dt_ids);
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver msc313e_pwm_driver = {
> > + .probe = msc313e_pwm_probe,
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = DRIVER_NAME,
> > + .of_match_table = msc313e_pwm_dt_ids,
> > + },
> > +};
> > +module_platform_driver(msc313e_pwm_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Mstar MSC313e PWM driver");
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Palmer <daniel@...ngy.jp>");
>
> That address doesn't match the author of this patch. Is this on purpose?
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
Regards,
Romain
Powered by blists - more mailing lists