linux-kernel - [PATCH v9 3/6] pwm: dwc: add PWM bit unset in get

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230907161242.67190-4-ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>
Date:   Thu,  7 Sep 2023 17:12:39 +0100
From:   Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
        jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com,
        William Salmon <william.salmon@...ive.com>,
        Jude Onyenegecha <jude.onyenegecha@...ive.com>
Subject: [PATCH v9 3/6] pwm: dwc: add PWM bit unset in get_state call

If we are not in PWM mode, then the output is technically a 50%
output based on a single timer instead of the high-low based on
the two counters. Add a check for the PWM mode in dwc_pwm_get_state()
and if DWC_TIM_CTRL_PWM is not set, then return a 50% cycle.

This may only be an issue on initialisation, as the rest of the
code currently assumes we're always going to have the extended
PWM mode using two counters.

Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
---
v9:
 - fixed multi-line comment
 - put authour back to codethink email from sifive
v8:
 - fixed rename issues
v4:
 - fixed review comment on mulit-line calculations
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-core.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-core.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-core.c
index 4b4b7b9e1d82..3fc281a78c9a 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-core.c
@@ -122,24 +122,32 @@ static int dwc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 {
 	struct dwc_pwm *dwc = to_dwc_pwm(chip);
 	u64 duty, period;
+	u32 ctrl, ld, ld2;
 
 	pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
 
-	state->enabled = !!(dwc_pwm_readl(dwc,
-				DWC_TIM_CTRL(pwm->hwpwm)) & DWC_TIM_CTRL_EN);
+	ctrl = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_CTRL(pwm->hwpwm));
+	ld = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_LD_CNT(pwm->hwpwm));
+	ld2 = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_LD_CNT2(pwm->hwpwm));
 
-	duty = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_LD_CNT(pwm->hwpwm));
-	duty += 1;
-	duty *= dwc->clk_ns;
-	state->duty_cycle = duty;
+	state->enabled = !!(ctrl & DWC_TIM_CTRL_EN);
 
-	period = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_LD_CNT2(pwm->hwpwm));
-	period += 1;
-	period *= dwc->clk_ns;
-	period += duty;
-	state->period = period;
+	/*
+	 * If we're not in PWM, technically the output is a 50-50
+	 * based on the timer load-count only.
+	 */
+	if (ctrl & DWC_TIM_CTRL_PWM) {
+		duty = (ld + 1) * dwc->clk_ns;
+		period = (ld2 + 1)  * dwc->clk_ns;
+		period += duty;
+	} else {
+		duty = (ld + 1) * dwc->clk_ns;
+		period = duty * 2;
+	}
 
 	state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
+	state->period = period;
+	state->duty_cycle = duty;
 
 	pm_runtime_put_sync(chip->dev);
 
-- 
2.40.1