All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Milo Kim <milo.kim@ti.com>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com>,
	Caesar Wang <wxt@rock-chips.com>,
	Stephen Barber <smbarber@chromium.org>,
	Ajit Pal Singh <ajitpal.singh@st.com>,
	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@gmail.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com>,
	Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>,
	kernel@stlinux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:26:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160604082608.041925a7@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160603202859.GD124478@google.com>

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:28:59 -0700
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just noticed a few things:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:03AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The current logic will disable the PWM clk even if the PWM was left
> > enabled by the bootloader (because it's controlling a critical device
> > like a regulator for example).
> > Keep the PWM clk enabled if the PWM is enabled to avoid any glitches.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > index dfacf7d..798a787 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > @@ -299,6 +299,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >  	const struct of_device_id *id;
> >  	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
> > +	struct pwm_state state;
> >  	struct resource *r;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > @@ -319,7 +320,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	if (IS_ERR(pc->clk))
> >  		return PTR_ERR(pc->clk);
> >  
> > -	ret = clk_prepare(pc->clk);
> > +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > @@ -342,12 +343,33 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "pwmchip_add() failed: %d\n", ret);
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/* Keep the PWM clk enabled if the PWM appears to be up and running. */
> > +	pwm_get_state(pc->chip.pwms, &state);
> > +	if (!state.enabled)  
> 
> Why not just if (!pwm_is_enabled())?

It's a leftover from a previous version where I was deprecating
pwm_enable(). I'll switch back to pwm_enable().

Thanks,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 05/14] pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:26:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160604082608.041925a7@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160603202859.GD124478@google.com>

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:28:59 -0700
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just noticed a few things:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:03AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The current logic will disable the PWM clk even if the PWM was left
> > enabled by the bootloader (because it's controlling a critical device
> > like a regulator for example).
> > Keep the PWM clk enabled if the PWM is enabled to avoid any glitches.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > index dfacf7d..798a787 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> > @@ -299,6 +299,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >  	const struct of_device_id *id;
> >  	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
> > +	struct pwm_state state;
> >  	struct resource *r;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > @@ -319,7 +320,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	if (IS_ERR(pc->clk))
> >  		return PTR_ERR(pc->clk);
> >  
> > -	ret = clk_prepare(pc->clk);
> > +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > @@ -342,12 +343,33 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "pwmchip_add() failed: %d\n", ret);
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/* Keep the PWM clk enabled if the PWM appears to be up and running. */
> > +	pwm_get_state(pc->chip.pwms, &state);
> > +	if (!state.enabled)  
> 
> Why not just if (!pwm_is_enabled())?

It's a leftover from a previous version where I was deprecating
pwm_enable(). I'll switch back to pwm_enable().

Thanks,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-04  6:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-03  8:22 [PATCH 00/14] regulator: pwm: various improvements Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:22 ` [PATCH 01/14] pwm: Add new helpers to create/manipulate PWM states Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:22   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 02/14] regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 11:08   ` Applied "regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call" to the regulator tree Mark Brown
2016-06-03 11:08     ` Mark Brown
2016-06-03 11:08     ` Mark Brown
2016-06-03 11:08     ` Mark Brown
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 03/14] pwm: rockchip: Fix period and duty_cycle approximation Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:03   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:03     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:19     ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-04  6:19       ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-07 17:25       ` Brian Norris
2016-06-07 17:25         ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 04/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for hardware readout Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:07   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:07     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:20   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:20     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:24     ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-04  6:24       ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-07 17:26       ` Brian Norris
2016-06-07 17:26         ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 05/14] pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:28   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:28     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:26     ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2016-06-04  6:26       ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 06/14] pwm: rockchip: Add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:37   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:37     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:37     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 07/14] pwm: sti: Add support for hardware readout Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 08/14] pwm: sti: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:38   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:38     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:38     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 09/14] regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:41   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:41     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 10/14] regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:50   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:50     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:50     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:28     ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-04  6:28       ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-06  6:14       ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-06-06  6:14         ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-06-06  6:14         ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 11/14] regulator: pwm: properly initialize the ->state field Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:51   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:51     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 12/14] regulator: pwm: Retrieve correct voltage Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 20:55   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 20:55     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 13/14] regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 21:03   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 21:03     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-04  6:30     ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-04  6:30       ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23 ` [PATCH 14/14] regulator: pwm: Document pwm-dutycycle-unit and pwm-dutycycle-range Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03  8:23   ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-03 21:04   ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 21:04     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-03 21:04     ` Brian Norris
2016-06-06 14:09   ` Rob Herring
2016-06-06 14:09     ` Rob Herring

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=20160604082608.041925a7@bbrezillon \
    --to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=ajitpal.singh@st.com \
    --cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dianders@google.com \
    --cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
    --cc=kernel@stlinux.com \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maxime.coquelin@st.com \
    --cc=milo.kim@ti.com \
    --cc=patrice.chotard@st.com \
    --cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=smbarber@chromium.org \
    --cc=srinivas.kandagatla@gmail.com \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    --cc=wxt@rock-chips.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.