Message-ID: <846b27400a72db8ca9b7497a6c032bdaacd62fc6.camel@crapouillou.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 23:05:10 +0000
From:   Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, od@...ndingux.net,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] pwm: jz4740: Fix pin level of disabled TCU2
 channels, part 1

Hi Uwe,

Le mardi 17 janvier 2023 à 22:35 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König a écrit :
> Hello Paul,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 09:55:40AM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > Le jeu. 17 nov. 2022 à 14:29:27 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> a écrit :
> > > Hello Paul,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:02:00AM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > >  Le mar. 25 oct. 2022 à 08:21:29 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König
> > > >  <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> a écrit :
> > > >  > Hello,
> > > >  >
> > > >  > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 09:52:09PM +0100, Paul Cercueil
> > > > wrote:
> > > >  > >  The "duty > cycle" trick to force the pin level of a
> > > > disabled
> > > > TCU2
> > > >  > >  channel would only work when the channel had been enabled
> > > >  > > previously.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >  Address this issue by enabling the PWM mode in
> > > > jz4740_pwm_disable
> > > >  > >  (I know, right) so that the "duty > cycle" trick works
> > > > before
> > > >  > > disabling
> > > >  > >  the PWM channel right after.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >  This issue went unnoticed, as the PWM pins on the
> > > > majority of
> > > > the
> > > >  > > boards
> > > >  > >  tested would default to the inactive level once the
> > > > corresponding
> > > >  > > TCU
> > > >  > >  clock was enabled, so the first call to
> > > > jz4740_pwm_disable()
> > > > would
> > > >  > > not
> > > >  > >  actually change the pin levels.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >  On the GCW Zero however, the PWM pin for the backlight
> > > > (PWM1,
> > > > which
> > > >  > > is
> > > >  > >  a TCU2 channel) goes active as soon as the timer1 clock
> > > > is
> > > > enabled.
> > > >  > >  Since the jz4740_pwm_disable() function did not work on
> > > > channels not
> > > >  > >  previously enabled, the backlight would shine at full
> > > > brightness
> > > >  > > from
> > > >  > >  the moment the backlight driver would probe, until the
> > > > backlight
> > > >  > > driver
> > > >  > >  tried to *enable* the PWM output.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >  With this fix, the PWM pins will be forced inactive as
> > > > soon as
> > > >  > >  jz4740_pwm_apply() is called (and might be reconfigured
> > > > to
> > > > active if
> > > >  > >  dictated by the pwm_state). This means that there is
> > > > still a
> > > > tiny
> > > >  > > time
> > > >  > >  frame between the .request() and .apply() callbacks where
> > > > the
> > > > PWM
> > > >  > > pin
> > > >  > >  might be active. Sadly, there is no way to fix this
> > > > issue: it
> > > > is
> > > >  > >  impossible to write a PWM channel's registers if the
> > > > corresponding
> > > >  > > clock
> > > >  > >  is not enabled, and enabling the clock is what causes the
> > > > PWM
> > > > pin
> > > >  > > to go
> > > >  > >  active.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >  There is a workaround, though, which complements this
> > > > fix:
> > > > simply
> > > >  > >  starting the backlight driver (or any PWM client driver)
> > > > with a
> > > >  > > "init"
> > > >  > >  pinctrl state that sets the pin as an inactive GPIO. Once
> > > > the
> > > >  > > driver is
> > > >  > >  probed and the pinctrl state switches to "default", the
> > > > regular PWM
> > > >  > > pin
> > > >  > >  configuration can be used as it will be properly driven.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >  Fixes: c2693514a0a1 ("pwm: jz4740: Obtain regmap from
> > > > parent
> > > > node")
> > > >  > >  Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
> > > >  > >  Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > >  >
> > > >  > OK, understood the issue. I think there is another similar
> > > > issue:
> > > > The
> > > >  > clk is get and enabled only in the .request() callback. The
> > > > result is (I
> > > >  > think---depends on a few further conditions) that if you
> > > > have the
> > > >  > backlight driver as a module and the bootloader enables the
> > > > backlight to
> > > >  > show a splash screen, the backlight goes off because of the
> > > >  > clk_disable_unused initcall.
> > > > 
> > > >  I will have to verify, but I'm pretty sure disabling the clock
> > > > doesn't
> > > >  change the pin level back to inactive.
> > > 
> > > Given that you set the clk's rate depending on the period to
> > > apply, I'd
> > > claim that you need to keep the clk on. Maybe it doesn't hurt,
> > > because
> > > another component of the system keeps the clk running, but it's
> > > wrong
> > > anyhow. Assumptions like these tend to break on new chip
> > > revisions.
> > 
> > If the backlight driver is a module then it will probe before the
> > clk_disable_unused initcall, unless something is really wrong.
> 
> I'd claim the clk_disable_unused initcall is called before userspace
> starts and so before the module can be loaded. Who is wrong here?

Probably me.

> > So the backlight would stay ON if it was enabled by the bootloader,
> > unless the DTB decides it doesn't have to be.
> 
> Don't understand that. How could hte DTB decide the backlight can be
> disabled?

I don't remember what I meant by that :)
 
> > Anyway, I can try your suggestion, and move the trick to force-
> > disable PWM
> > pins in the probe(). After that, the clocks can be safely disabled,
> > so I can
> > disable them (for the disabled PWMs) at the end of the probe and
> > re-enable
> > them again in their respective .request() callback.
> 
> I really lost track of the problem here and would appreciate a new
> submission of the remaining (and improved?) patches.

Sure. I still have the patchset on the backburner and plan to
(eventually) send an updated version.

If you are fishing for patches I think you can take patches 3/5 and 4/5
of this patchset. Then I won't have to send them again in v2.

Cheers,
-Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists