Message-ID: <65e6e4d9.630a0220.8d898.19f4@mx.google.com>
Date: Tue,  5 Mar 2024 14:54:28 +0530
From: pratikmanvar09@...il.com
To: wahrenst@....net
Cc: festevam@...il.com,
	jun.li@....com,
	kernel@...gutronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-imx@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
	lkp@...el.com,
	oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
	pratik.manvar@....com,
	pratikmanvar09@...il.com,
	s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
	shawnguo@...nel.org,
	thierry.reding@...il.com,
	u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
	xiaoning.wang@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: imx27: workaround of the pwm output bug

Hi Stefan,

Sorry for the abysmal delay.
Thanks for your review and suggestions.

>Hi Pratik,
>
>Am 04.02.24 um 07:36 schrieb pratikmanvar09@...il.com:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> Thanks for your review.
>> Please see my reply below inline.
>>
>>>> From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>
>>>>
>>>> This fixes the pwm output bug when decrease the duty cycle.
>>>> This is a limited workaround for the PWM IP issue TKT0577206.
>>> this looks like a patch from the vendor tree.
>> [Pratik]: Yes, this is the patch from NXP. Please see original link of the patch https://github.com/nxp-imx/linux-imx/commit/16181cc4eee61d87cbaba0e5a479990507816317
>>
>>> Could you please provide a link to the origin or at least to the
>>> document which describes TKT0577206?
>> [Pratik]: Please refer i.MX8MN errata #ERR051198 in https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/errata/IMX8MN_0N14Y.pdf.
>Thanks, i think this ERR... reference is better than TKT... because it's
>links to the errata documents and other Freescale/NXP drivers use them
>too. So having this code in a comment would be great.
Sure, I will mention this #ERR051198 code in commit message.
>>
>>> As a i.MX6ULL user i couldn't find this issue in the chip errata. So are
>>> you sure that every PWM IP handled by this driver is affected?
>> [Pratik]: Yes, looks like this issue is on all platforms which uses this PWM IP.
>>
>>>> Root cause:
>>>> When the SAR FIFO is empty, the new write value will be directly applied
>>>> to SAR even the current period is not over.
>>>> If the new SAR value is less than the old one, and the counter is
>>>> greater than the new SAR value, the current period will not filp the
>>> s/filp/flip/ ?
>>>> level. This will result in a pulse with a duty cycle of 100%.
>>>>
>>>> Workaround:
>>>> Add an old value SAR write before updating the new duty cycle to SAR.
>>>> This will keep the new value is always in a not empty fifo, and can be
>>>> wait to update after a period finished.
>>>>
>>>> Limitation:
>>>> This workaround can only solve this issue when the PWM period is longer
>>>> than 2us(or <500KHz).
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jun Li <jun.li@....com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>
>>>> Link: https://github.com/nxp-imx/linux-imx/commit/16181cc4eee61d87cbaba0e5a479990507816317
>>>> Tested-by: Pratik Manvar <pratik.manvar@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    V1 -> V2: fix sparse warnings reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>>>              Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202312300907.RGtYsKxb-lkp@intel.com/
>>>>
>>>>    drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>    1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
>>>> index 7d9bc43f12b0..1e500a5bf564 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
>>>> @@ -21,11 +21,13 @@
>>>>    #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>>    #include <linux/pwm.h>
>>>>    #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>>>>
>>>>    #define MX3_PWMCR			0x00    /* PWM Control Register */
>>>>    #define MX3_PWMSR			0x04    /* PWM Status Register */
>>>>    #define MX3_PWMSAR			0x0C    /* PWM Sample Register */
>>>>    #define MX3_PWMPR			0x10    /* PWM Period Register */
>>>> +#define MX3_PWMCNR			0x14    /* PWM Counter Register */
>>>>
>>>>    #define MX3_PWMCR_FWM			GENMASK(27, 26)
>>>>    #define MX3_PWMCR_STOPEN		BIT(25)
>>>> @@ -91,6 +93,7 @@ struct pwm_imx27_chip {
>>>>    	 * value to return in that case.
>>>>    	 */
>>>>    	unsigned int duty_cycle;
>>>> +	spinlock_t lock;
>>>>    };
>>>>
>>>>    #define to_pwm_imx27_chip(chip)	container_of(chip, struct pwm_imx27_chip, chip)
>>>> @@ -203,10 +206,10 @@ static void pwm_imx27_wait_fifo_slot(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>>>>
>>>>    	sr = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSR);
>>>>    	fifoav = FIELD_GET(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV, sr);
>>>> -	if (fifoav == MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV_4WORDS) {
>>>> +	if (fifoav >= MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV_3WORDS) {
>>>>    		period_ms = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(pwm_get_period(pwm),
>>>>    					 NSEC_PER_MSEC);
>>>> -		msleep(period_ms);
>>>> +		msleep(period_ms * (fifoav - 2));
>>> This touches a different workaround ("pwm: imx: Avoid sample FIFO
>>> overflow for i.MX PWM version2") without any explanation.
>> [Pratik]: Sure, I will look into this. Thanks!
>>>>    		sr = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSR);
>>>>    		if (fifoav == FIELD_GET(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV, sr))
>>>> @@ -217,13 +220,15 @@ static void pwm_imx27_wait_fifo_slot(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>>>>    static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>>>    			   const struct pwm_state *state)
>>>>    {
>>>> -	unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
>>>> +	unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale, counter_check, flags;
>>>>    	struct pwm_imx27_chip *imx = to_pwm_imx27_chip(chip);
>>>> +	void __iomem *reg_sar = imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR;
>>>> +	__force u32 sar_last, sar_current;
>>>>    	struct pwm_state cstate;
>>>>    	unsigned long long c;
>>>>    	unsigned long long clkrate;
>>>>    	int ret;
>>>> -	u32 cr;
>>>> +	u32 cr, timeout = 1000;
>>>>
>>>>    	pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -264,7 +269,57 @@ static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>>>    		pwm_imx27_sw_reset(chip);
>>>>    	}
>>>>
>>>> -	writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * This is a limited workaround. When the SAR FIFO is empty, the new
>>>> +	 * write value will be directly applied to SAR even the current period
>>>> +	 * is not over.
>>>> +	 * If the new SAR value is less than the old one, and the counter is
>>>> +	 * greater than the new SAR value, the current period will not filp
>>> The same typo as in the commit message.
>>>> +	 * the level. This will result in a pulse with a duty cycle of 100%.
>>>> +	 * So, writing the current value of the SAR to SAR here before updating
>>>> +	 * the new SAR value can avoid this issue.
>>>> +	 *
>>>> +	 * Add a spin lock and turn off the interrupt to ensure that the
>>>> +	 * real-time performance can be guaranteed as much as possible when
>>>> +	 * operating the following operations.
>>>> +	 *
>>>> +	 * 1. Add a threshold of 1.5us. If the time T between the read current
>>>> +	 * count value CNR and the end of the cycle is less than 1.5us, wait
>>>> +	 * for T to be longer than 1.5us before updating the SAR register.
>>>> +	 * This is to avoid the situation that when the first SAR is written,
>>>> +	 * the current cycle just ends and the SAR FIFO that just be written
>>>> +	 * is emptied again.
>>>> +	 *
>>>> +	 * 2. Use __raw_writel() to minimize the interval between two writes to
>>>> +	 * the SAR register to increase the fastest pwm frequency supported.
>>>> +	 *
>>>> +	 * When the PWM period is longer than 2us(or <500KHz), this workaround
>>>> +	 * can solve this problem.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (duty_cycles < imx->duty_cycle) {
>>>> +		c = clkrate * 1500;
>>>> +		do_div(c, NSEC_PER_SEC);
>>>> +		counter_check = c;
>>>> +		sar_last = (__force u32) cpu_to_le32(imx->duty_cycle);
>>>> +		sar_current = (__force u32) cpu_to_le32(duty_cycles);
>>>> +
>>>> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&imx->lock, flags);
>>>> +		if (state->period >= 2000) {
>>>> +			while ((period_cycles -
>>>> +				readl_relaxed(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCNR))
>>>> +				< counter_check) {
>>>> +				if (!--timeout)
>>>> +					break;
>>>> +			};
>>>> +		}
>>>> +		if (!(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV &
>>>> +		      readl_relaxed(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSR)))
>>>> +			__raw_writel(sar_last, reg_sar);
>>>> +		__raw_writel(sar_current, reg_sar);
>>>> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&imx->lock, flags);
>>>> +	} else
>>>> +		writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
>>>> +
>>> This is hard to believe that checkpatch.pl is fine with this patch.
>>> Please use it before submission.
>> [Pratik]: I used the checkpatch.pl in this patch and that runs without any warnings/errors!
>Okay, AFAIR the coding style suggests braces for the else case.
>>
>>>>    	writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
>>>>
>>>>    	/*
>>>> @@ -324,6 +379,8 @@ static int pwm_imx27_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(imx->clk_per),
>>>>    				     "failed to get peripheral clock\n");
>>>>
>>>> +	spin_lock_init(&imx->lock);
>>>> +	imx->duty_cycle = 0;
>>> This line looks unrelated and unnecessary.
>> [Pratik]: Right. I will remove this line in next patch version.
>Could you also please look at Uwe's comments [1]?
>
>Thanks
>
>[1] -
>https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211220105555.zwq22vip7onafrck@pengutronix.de/
Actually, I did not get much time to work on this. But, I will look into this now.
>>
>>> Best regards
>>>>    	imx->chip.ops = &pwm_imx27_ops;
>>>>    	imx->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>>    	imx->chip.npwm = 1;

Thanks & Regards,
Pratik Manvar

Powered by blists - more mailing lists