Hello,

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 06:41:33PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> The switch to the atomic API goes hand in hand with a few fixes to
> previously experienced issues:
> - The duty cycle is no longer lost after disable/enable (previously the
>   OFF registers were cleared in disable and the user was required to
>   call config to restore the duty cycle settings)
> - If one sets a period resulting in the same prescale register value,
>   the sleep and write to the register is now skipped
> 
> Signed-off-by: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gru...@pqgruber.com>
> ---
> Changes since v6:
> - Order of a comparison switched for improved readability
> 
> Changes since v5:
> - Function documentation for set_duty
> - Variable initializations
> - Print warning if all LEDs channel
> - Changed EOPNOTSUPP to EINVAL
> - Improved error messages
> - Register reset corrections moved to this patch
> 
> Changes since v4:
> - Patches split up
> - Use a single set_duty function
> - Improve readability / new macros
> - Added a patch to restrict prescale changes to the first user
> 
> Changes since v3:
> - Refactoring: Extracted common functions
> - Read prescale register value instead of caching it
> - Return all zeros and disabled for "all LEDs" channel state
> - Improved duty calculation / mapping to 0..4096
> 
> Changes since v2:
> - Always set default prescale value in probe
> - Simplified probe code
> - Inlined functions with one callsite
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - Fixed a logic error
> - Impoved PM runtime handling and fixed !CONFIG_PM
> - Write default prescale reg value if invalid in probe
> - Reuse full_off/_on functions throughout driver
> - Use cached prescale value whenever possible
> 
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 261 ++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 92 insertions(+), 169 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> index 4a55dc18656c..5a2ce97e71fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> @@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
>  #define PCA9685_PRESCALE_MAX 0xFF    /* => min. frequency of 24 Hz */
>  
>  #define PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE        4096
> -#define PCA9685_DEFAULT_PERIOD       5000000 /* Default period_ns = 1/200 Hz 
> */
>  #define PCA9685_OSC_CLOCK_MHZ        25      /* Internal oscillator with 25 
> MHz */
>  
>  #define PCA9685_NUMREGS              0xFF
> @@ -71,10 +70,14 @@
>  #define LED_N_OFF_H(N)       (PCA9685_LEDX_OFF_H + (4 * (N)))
>  #define LED_N_OFF_L(N)       (PCA9685_LEDX_OFF_L + (4 * (N)))
>  
> +#define REG_ON_H(C)  ((C) >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN ? PCA9685_ALL_LED_ON_H : 
> LED_N_ON_H((C)))
> +#define REG_ON_L(C)  ((C) >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN ? PCA9685_ALL_LED_ON_L : 
> LED_N_ON_L((C)))
> +#define REG_OFF_H(C) ((C) >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN ? PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H : 
> LED_N_OFF_H((C)))
> +#define REG_OFF_L(C) ((C) >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN ? PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_L : 
> LED_N_OFF_L((C)))
> +
>  struct pca9685 {
>       struct pwm_chip chip;
>       struct regmap *regmap;
> -     int period_ns;
>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GPIOLIB)
>       struct mutex lock;
>       struct gpio_chip gpio;
> @@ -87,6 +90,51 @@ static inline struct pca9685 *to_pca(struct pwm_chip *chip)
>       return container_of(chip, struct pca9685, chip);
>  }
>  
> +/* Helper function to set the duty cycle ratio to duty/4096 (e.g. duty=2048 
> -> 50%) */
> +static void pca9685_pwm_set_duty(struct pca9685 *pca, int channel, unsigned 
> int duty)
> +{
> +     if (duty == 0) {
> +             /* Set the full OFF bit, which has the highest precedence */
> +             regmap_write(pca->regmap, REG_OFF_H(channel), LED_FULL);
> +     } else if (duty >= PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE) {
> +             /* Set the full ON bit and clear the full OFF bit */
> +             regmap_write(pca->regmap, REG_ON_H(channel), LED_FULL);
> +             regmap_write(pca->regmap, REG_OFF_H(channel), 0);
> +     } else {
> +             /* Set OFF time (clears the full OFF bit) */
> +             regmap_write(pca->regmap, REG_OFF_L(channel), duty & 0xff);
> +             regmap_write(pca->regmap, REG_OFF_H(channel), (duty >> 8) & 
> 0xf);
> +             /* Clear the full ON bit */
> +             regmap_write(pca->regmap, REG_ON_H(channel), 0);
> +     }
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned int pca9685_pwm_get_duty(struct pca9685 *pca, int channel)
> +{
> +     unsigned int off_h = 0, val = 0;
> +
> +     if (WARN_ON(channel >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)) {
> +             /* HW does not support reading state of "all LEDs" channel */
> +             return 0;
> +     }
> +
> +     regmap_read(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_H(channel), &off_h);
> +     if (off_h & LED_FULL) {
> +             /* Full OFF bit is set */
> +             return 0;
> +     }
> +
> +     regmap_read(pca->regmap, LED_N_ON_H(channel), &val);
> +     if (val & LED_FULL) {
> +             /* Full ON bit is set */
> +             return PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE;
> +     }
> +
> +     val = 0;

Why do you set val to 0 first? Do you get a compiler warning otherwise?

> +     regmap_read(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_L(channel), &val);
> +     return ((off_h & 0xf) << 8) | (val & 0xff);
> +}
> +
>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GPIOLIB)
>  static bool pca9685_pwm_test_and_set_inuse(struct pca9685 *pca, int pwm_idx)
>  {
> @@ -138,34 +186,23 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_gpio_request(struct gpio_chip 
> *gpio, unsigned int offset)
>  static int pca9685_pwm_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset)
>  {
>       struct pca9685 *pca = gpiochip_get_data(gpio);
> -     struct pwm_device *pwm = &pca->chip.pwms[offset];
> -     unsigned int value;
>  
> -     regmap_read(pca->regmap, LED_N_ON_H(pwm->hwpwm), &value);
> -
> -     return value & LED_FULL;
> +     return pca9685_pwm_get_duty(pca, offset) != 0;

Is this a relevant bug fix? If both OFF_H.FULL and ON_H.FULL are set,
the output is low and this was diagnosed before as high.

>  }
>  
>  static void pca9685_pwm_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset,
>                                int value)
>  {
>       struct pca9685 *pca = gpiochip_get_data(gpio);
> -     struct pwm_device *pwm = &pca->chip.pwms[offset];
> -     unsigned int on = value ? LED_FULL : 0;
> -
> -     /* Clear both OFF registers */
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_L(pwm->hwpwm), 0);
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm), 0);
>  
> -     /* Set the full ON bit */
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, LED_N_ON_H(pwm->hwpwm), on);
> +     pca9685_pwm_set_duty(pca, offset, value ? PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE : 0);
>  }
>  
>  static void pca9685_pwm_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int 
> offset)
>  {
>       struct pca9685 *pca = gpiochip_get_data(gpio);
>  
> -     pca9685_pwm_gpio_set(gpio, offset, 0);
> +     pca9685_pwm_set_duty(pca, offset, 0);

Orthogonal to your patch:
I don't know the customs of GPIO drivers enough, but I wonder that
.free() results in setting the value of the GPIO?!

>       pm_runtime_put(pca->chip.dev);
>       pca9685_pwm_clear_inuse(pca, offset);
>  }
> @@ -246,167 +283,56 @@ static void pca9685_set_sleep_mode(struct pca9685 
> *pca, bool enable)
>       }
>  }
>  
> -static int pca9685_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> -                           int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> +static int pca9685_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +                          const struct pwm_state *state)
>  {
>       struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip);
> -     unsigned long long duty;
> -     unsigned int reg;
> -     int prescale;
> -
> -     if (period_ns != pca->period_ns) {
> -             prescale = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(PCA9685_OSC_CLOCK_MHZ * period_ns,
> -                                          PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE * 1000) - 1;
> -
> -             if (prescale >= PCA9685_PRESCALE_MIN &&
> -                     prescale <= PCA9685_PRESCALE_MAX) {
> -                     /*
> -                      * Putting the chip briefly into SLEEP mode
> -                      * at this point won't interfere with the
> -                      * pm_runtime framework, because the pm_runtime
> -                      * state is guaranteed active here.
> -                      */
> -                     /* Put chip into sleep mode */
> -                     pca9685_set_sleep_mode(pca, true);
> -
> -                     /* Change the chip-wide output frequency */
> -                     regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_PRESCALE, prescale);
> -
> -                     /* Wake the chip up */
> -                     pca9685_set_sleep_mode(pca, false);
> -
> -                     pca->period_ns = period_ns;
> -             } else {
> -                     dev_err(chip->dev,
> -                             "prescaler not set: period out of bounds!\n");
> -                     return -EINVAL;
> -             }
> -     }
> +     unsigned long long duty, prescale;
> +     unsigned int val = 0;
>  
> -     if (duty_ns < 1) {
> -             if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -                     reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H;
> -             else
> -                     reg = LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm);
> +     if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> +             return -EINVAL;
>  
> -             regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, LED_FULL);
> -
> -             return 0;
> +     prescale = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(PCA9685_OSC_CLOCK_MHZ * state->period,
> +                                      PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE * 1000) - 1;

Here the multiplication might overflow.  Also if period is small the
result of the division might be 0 and prescale might end up being -1ULL.
(But that's a problem that we had already before, so not a stopper for
this patch.)

> +     if (prescale < PCA9685_PRESCALE_MIN || prescale > PCA9685_PRESCALE_MAX) 
> {
> +             dev_err(chip->dev, "pwm not changed: period out of bounds!\n");
> +             return -EINVAL;
>       }
>  
> -     if (duty_ns == period_ns) {
> -             /* Clear both OFF registers */
> -             if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -                     reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_L;
> -             else
> -                     reg = LED_N_OFF_L(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -             regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, 0x0);
> -
> -             if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -                     reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H;
> -             else
> -                     reg = LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -             regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, 0x0);
> -
> -             /* Set the full ON bit */
> -             if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -                     reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_ON_H;
> -             else
> -                     reg = LED_N_ON_H(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -             regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, LED_FULL);
> +     duty = PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE * state->duty_cycle;
> +     duty = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(duty, state->period);

Here we're losing precision. In general calculating the duty should be
done using time, not period counter values. (Again, that's an old
problem.)

>  
> +     if (duty < 1 || !state->enabled) {
> +             pca9685_pwm_set_duty(pca, pwm->hwpwm, 0);
> +             return 0;
> +     } else if (duty == PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE) {
> +             pca9685_pwm_set_duty(pca, pwm->hwpwm, duty);
>               return 0;
>       }
>  
> -     duty = PCA9685_COUNTER_RANGE * (unsigned long long)duty_ns;
> -     duty = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(duty, period_ns);

Oh, the new implementation uses DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST. IMHO either keep the
calculations as is, or use the preferred round-down.

> -
> -     if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -             reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_L;
> -     else
> -             reg = LED_N_OFF_L(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, (int)duty & 0xff);
> -
> -     if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -             reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H;
> -     else
> -             reg = LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, ((int)duty >> 8) & 0xf);
> -
> -     /* Clear the full ON bit, otherwise the set OFF time has no effect */
> -     if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -             reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_ON_H;
> -     else
> -             reg = LED_N_ON_H(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, 0);
> -
> -     return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static int pca9685_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> -{
> -     struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip);
> -     unsigned int reg;
> -
> -     /*
> -      * The PWM subsystem does not support a pre-delay.
> -      * So, set the ON-timeout to 0
> -      */
> -     if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -             reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_ON_L;
> -     else
> -             reg = LED_N_ON_L(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, 0);
> -
> -     if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -             reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_ON_H;
> -     else
> -             reg = LED_N_ON_H(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, 0);
> +     regmap_read(pca->regmap, PCA9685_PRESCALE, &val);
> +     if (prescale != val) {
> +             /*
> +              * Putting the chip briefly into SLEEP mode
> +              * at this point won't interfere with the
> +              * pm_runtime framework, because the pm_runtime
> +              * state is guaranteed active here.
> +              */
> +             /* Put chip into sleep mode */
> +             pca9685_set_sleep_mode(pca, true);

I assume it's a requirement to stop the oscillator when changing the
prescaler?

>  
> -     /*
> -      * Clear the full-off bit.
> -      * It has precedence over the others and must be off.
> -      */
> -     if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -             reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H;
> -     else
> -             reg = LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm);
> +             /* Change the chip-wide output frequency */
> +             regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_PRESCALE, (int)prescale);

The cast isn't necessary, is it?

> -     regmap_update_bits(pca->regmap, reg, LED_FULL, 0x0);
> +             /* Wake the chip up */
> +             pca9685_set_sleep_mode(pca, false);
> +     }
>  
> +     pca9685_pwm_set_duty(pca, pwm->hwpwm, duty);
>       return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static void pca9685_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device 
> *pwm)
> -{
> -     struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip);
> -     unsigned int reg;
> -
> -     if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -             reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H;
> -     else
> -             reg = LED_N_OFF_H(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, LED_FULL);
> -
> -     /* Clear the LED_OFF counter. */
> -     if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN)
> -             reg = PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_L;
> -     else
> -             reg = LED_N_OFF_L(pwm->hwpwm);
> -
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, reg, 0x0);
> -}
> -
>  static int pca9685_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  {
>       struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip);
> @@ -422,15 +348,13 @@ static void pca9685_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, 
> struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  {
>       struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip);
>  
> -     pca9685_pwm_disable(chip, pwm);
> +     pca9685_pwm_set_duty(pca, pwm->hwpwm, 0);
>       pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
>       pca9685_pwm_clear_inuse(pca, pwm->hwpwm);
>  }
>  
>  static const struct pwm_ops pca9685_pwm_ops = {
> -     .enable = pca9685_pwm_enable,
> -     .disable = pca9685_pwm_disable,
> -     .config = pca9685_pwm_config,
> +     .apply = pca9685_pwm_apply,
>       .request = pca9685_pwm_request,
>       .free = pca9685_pwm_free,
>       .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> @@ -461,7 +385,6 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>                       ret);
>               return ret;
>       }
> -     pca->period_ns = PCA9685_DEFAULT_PERIOD;
>  
>       i2c_set_clientdata(client, pca);
>  
> @@ -484,9 +407,9 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>       reg &= ~(MODE1_ALLCALL | MODE1_SUB1 | MODE1_SUB2 | MODE1_SUB3);
>       regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_MODE1, reg);
>  
> -     /* Clear all "full off" bits */
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_L, 0);
> -     regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H, 0);
> +     /* Reset OFF registers to POR default */
> +     regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_L, LED_FULL);
> +     regmap_write(pca->regmap, PCA9685_ALL_LED_OFF_H, LED_FULL);

Is this hunk unrelated to the patch description?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to