From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 05/15] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 14:17:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200620121758.14836-6-hdegoede@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200620121758.14836-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>
Before this commit a suspend + resume of the LPSS PWM controller
would result in the controller being reset to its defaults of
output-freq = clock/256, duty-cycle=100%, until someone changes
to the output-freq and/or duty-cycle are made.
This problem has been masked so far because the main consumer
(the i915 driver) was always making duty-cycle changes on resume.
With the conversion of the i915 driver to the atomic PWM API the
driver now only disables/enables the PWM on suspend/resume leaving
the output-freq and duty as is, triggering this problem.
The LPSS PWM controller has a mechanism where the ctrl register value
and the actual base-unit and on-time-div values used are latched. When
software sets the SW_UPDATE bit then at the end of the current PWM cycle,
the new values from the ctrl-register will be latched into the actual
registers, and the SW_UPDATE bit will be cleared.
The problem is that before this commit our suspend/resume handling
consisted of simply saving the PWM ctrl register on suspend and
restoring it on resume, without setting the PWM_SW_UPDATE bit.
When the controller has lost its state over a suspend/resume and thus
has been reset to the defaults, just restoring the register is not
enough. We must also set the SW_UPDATE bit to tell the controller to
latch the restored values into the actual registers.
Fixing this problem is not as simple as just or-ing in the value which
is being restored with SW_UPDATE. If the PWM was enabled before we must
write the new settings + PWM_SW_UPDATE before setting PWM_ENABLE.
We must also wait for PWM_SW_UPDATE to become 0 again and depending on the
model we must do this either before or after the setting of PWM_ENABLE.
All the necessary logic for doing this is already present inside
pwm_lpss_apply(), so instead of duplicating this inside the resume
handler, this commit makes the resume handler use pwm_lpss_apply() to
restore the settings when necessary. This fixes the output-freq and
duty-cycle being reset to their defaults on resume.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- This replaces the "pwm: lpss: Set SW_UPDATE bit when enabling the PWM"
patch from previous versions of this patch-set, which really was a hack
working around the resume issue which this patch fixes properly.
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index 80d0f9c64f9d..4f3d60ce9929 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -123,25 +123,31 @@ static inline void pwm_lpss_cond_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm, bool cond)
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_ENABLE);
}
-static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
- const struct pwm_state *state)
+static int __pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ const struct pwm_state *state, bool from_resume)
{
struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
int ret;
if (state->enabled) {
if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
- pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
+ if (!from_resume)
+ pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
+
ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
if (ret) {
- pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+ if (!from_resume)
+ pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+
return ret;
}
pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == false);
ret = pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm);
if (ret) {
- pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+ if (!from_resume)
+ pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+
return ret;
}
pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true);
@@ -154,12 +160,20 @@ static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
}
} else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
- pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+
+ if (!from_resume)
+ pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
}
return 0;
}
+static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ const struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+ return __pwm_lpss_apply(chip, pwm, state, false);
+}
+
static void pwm_lpss_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
struct pwm_state *state)
{
@@ -272,10 +286,40 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_lpss_suspend);
int pwm_lpss_resume(struct device *dev)
{
struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- int i;
+ struct pwm_state saved_state;
+ struct pwm_device *pwm;
+ int i, ret;
+ u32 ctrl;
- for (i = 0; i < lpwm->info->npwm; i++)
- writel(lpwm->saved_ctrl[i], lpwm->regs + i * PWM_SIZE + PWM);
+ for (i = 0; i < lpwm->info->npwm; i++) {
+ pwm = &lpwm->chip.pwms[i];
+
+ ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm);
+ /* If we did not reach S0i3/S3 the controller keeps its state */
+ if (ctrl == lpwm->saved_ctrl[i])
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * We cannot just blindly restore the old value here. Since we
+ * are changing the settings we must set SW_UPDATE and if the
+ * PWM was enabled before we must write the new settings +
+ * PWM_SW_UPDATE before setting PWM_ENABLE. We must also wait
+ * for PWM_SW_UPDATE to become 0 again and depending on the
+ * model we must do this either before or after the setting of
+ * PWM_ENABLE.
+ * So instead of reproducing all the code from pwm_apply() here,
+ * we just reapply the state as stored in pwm->state.
+ */
+ saved_state = pwm->state;
+ /*
+ * Update enabled to its actual setting for the
+ * enabled<->disabled transitions inside apply().
+ */
+ pwm->state.enabled = !!(ctrl & PWM_ENABLE);
+ ret = __pwm_lpss_apply(&lpwm->chip, pwm, &saved_state, true);
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err(dev, "Error restoring state on resume\n");
+ }
return 0;
}
--
2.26.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-20 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-20 12:17 [PATCH v3 00/15] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 01/15] ACPI / LPSS: Resume Cherry Trail PWM controller in no-irq phase Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 16:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 02/15] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (at activation) Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 16:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 03/15] pwm: lpss: Fix off by one error in base_unit math in pwm_lpss_prepare() Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 7:25 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 7:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-06 20:53 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 7:34 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 8:04 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 17:31 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 19:09 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 19:41 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 06/15] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256 Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 07/15] pwm: crc: Fix off-by-one error in the clock-divider calculations Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 08/15] pwm: crc: Fix period changes not having any effect Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 09/15] pwm: crc: Enable/disable PWM output on enable/disable Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 7:55 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-06 21:03 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 7:26 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 10/15] pwm: crc: Implement apply() method to support the new atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 11/15] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 7:57 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-06 21:05 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 7:24 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 12/15] drm/i915: panel: Add get_vbt_pwm_freq() helper Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 13/15] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 14/15] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM min setting " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 15/15] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API " Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 7:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 19:21 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-30 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 00/15] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Jani Nikula
2020-07-06 20:53 ` Hans de Goede
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200620121758.14836-6-hdegoede@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).