On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 03:05:48PM +0100, Clément Péron wrote: > Hi Uwe, > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 22:21, Clément Péron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Uwe, > > > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 22:16, Uwe Kleine-König > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:59:01PM +0100, Clément Péron wrote: > > > > From: Jernej Skrabec <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > PWM core has an option to bypass whole logic and output unchanged source > > > > clock as PWM output. This is achieved by enabling bypass bit. > > > > > > > > Note that when bypass is enabled, no other setting has any meaning, not > > > > even enable bit. > > > > > > > > This mode of operation is needed to achieve high enough frequency to > > > > serve as clock source for AC200 chip which is integrated into same > > > > package as H6 SoC. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jernej Skrabec <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c > > > > index 1fa2057419fb..0fe9c680d6d0 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c > > > > @@ -3,6 +3,10 @@ > > > > * Driver for Allwinner sun4i Pulse Width Modulation Controller > > > > * > > > > * Copyright (C) 2014 Alexandre Belloni > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > + * > > > > + * Limitations: > > > > + * - When outputing the source clock directly, the PWM logic will be > > > > bypassed > > > > + * and the currently running period is not guaranteed to be completed > > > > */ > > > > > > > > #include <linux/bitops.h> > > > > @@ -73,6 +77,7 @@ static const u32 prescaler_table[] = { > > > > > > > > struct sun4i_pwm_data { > > > > bool has_prescaler_bypass; > > > > + bool has_direct_mod_clk_output; > > > > unsigned int npwm; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > @@ -118,6 +123,20 @@ static void sun4i_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip > > > > *chip, > > > > > > > > val = sun4i_pwm_readl(sun4i_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG); > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > + * PWM chapter in H6 manual has a diagram which explains that if > > > > bypass > > > > + * bit is set, no other setting has any meaning. Even more, > > > > experiment > > > > + * proved that also enable bit is ignored in this case. > > > > + */ > > > > + if ((val & BIT_CH(PWM_BYPASS, pwm->hwpwm)) && > > > > + sun4i_pwm->data->has_direct_mod_clk_output) { > > > > + state->period = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(NSEC_PER_SEC, clk_rate); > > > > + state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(state->period, 2); > > > > + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; > > > > + state->enabled = true; > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > if ((PWM_REG_PRESCAL(val, pwm->hwpwm) == PWM_PRESCAL_MASK) && > > > > sun4i_pwm->data->has_prescaler_bypass) > > > > prescaler = 1; > > > > @@ -149,13 +168,24 @@ static void sun4i_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip > > > > *chip, > > > > > > > > static int sun4i_pwm_calculate(struct sun4i_pwm_chip *sun4i_pwm, > > > > const struct pwm_state *state, > > > > - u32 *dty, u32 *prd, unsigned int *prsclr) > > > > + u32 *dty, u32 *prd, unsigned int *prsclr, > > > > + bool *bypass) > > > > { > > > > u64 clk_rate, div = 0; > > > > unsigned int pval, prescaler = 0; > > > > > > > > clk_rate = clk_get_rate(sun4i_pwm->clk); > > > > > > > > + *bypass = sun4i_pwm->data->has_direct_mod_clk_output && > > > > + state->enabled && > > > > + (state->period * clk_rate >= NSEC_PER_SEC) && > > > > + (state->period * clk_rate < 2 * NSEC_PER_SEC) && > > > > + (state->duty_cycle * clk_rate * 2 >= NSEC_PER_SEC); > > > > + > > > > + /* Skip calculation of other parameters if we bypass them */ > > > > + if (*bypass) > > > > + return 0; > > > > + > > > > if (sun4i_pwm->data->has_prescaler_bypass) { > > > > /* First, test without any prescaler when available */ > > > > prescaler = PWM_PRESCAL_MASK; > > > > @@ -206,6 +236,7 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, > > > > struct pwm_device *pwm, > > > > int ret; > > > > unsigned int delay_us, prescaler; > > > > unsigned long now; > > > > + bool bypass; > > > > > > > > pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate); > > > > > > > > @@ -220,7 +251,8 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, > > > > struct pwm_device *pwm, > > > > spin_lock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock); > > > > ctrl = sun4i_pwm_readl(sun4i_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG); > > > > > > > > - ret = sun4i_pwm_calculate(sun4i_pwm, state, &duty, &period, > > > > &prescaler); > > > > + ret = sun4i_pwm_calculate(sun4i_pwm, state, &duty, &period, > > > > &prescaler, > > > > + &bypass); > > > > if (ret) { > > > > dev_err(chip->dev, "period exceeds the maximum value\n"); > > > > spin_unlock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock); > > > > @@ -229,6 +261,18 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, > > > > struct pwm_device *pwm, > > > > return ret; > > > > } > > > > > > > > + if (sun4i_pwm->data->has_direct_mod_clk_output) { > > > > + if (bypass) { > > > > + ctrl |= BIT_CH(PWM_BYPASS, pwm->hwpwm); > > > > + /* We can skip other parameter */ > > > > + sun4i_pwm_writel(sun4i_pwm, ctrl, PWM_CTRL_REG); > > > > + spin_unlock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock); > > > > + return 0; > > > > + } else { > > > > + ctrl &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_BYPASS, pwm->hwpwm); > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > > > This could be simplified to: > > > > > > if (bypass) { > > > ctrl |= BIT_CH(PWM_BYPASS, pwm->hwpwm); > > > /* > > > * Other parameters are not relevant in this mode and so > > > * writing them can be skipped > > > */ > > > sun4i_pwm_writel(sun4i_pwm, ctrl, PWM_CTRL_REG); > > > spin_unlock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock); > > > return 0; > > > } else { > > > ctrl &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_BYPASS, pwm->hwpwm); > > > } > > > > > > which has the advantage(?) that the bypass bit is also (more obviously) > > > cleared for SoCs that don't support it and it reduces the indention > > > level. > > > > This bit is not guaranteed to be reserved for all the SoC variants. > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to set to 0 a bit which is undefined. > > Let me know if you agree or not with this and I send the v9 according > to your answer.
If my suggestion is not safe according to the documentation, it is obviously wrong. So only take it into account if a zero can be safely written. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/linux-sunxi/20191123200058.kz2farbyvruybtjj%40pengutronix.de.
