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>,
	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@gmail.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com>,
	Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>,
	kernel@stlinux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:30:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160604083009.25e7fac6@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160603210308.GK124478@google.com>

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:03:08 -0700
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:11AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The continuous mode allows one to declare a PWM regulator without having
> > to declare the voltage <-> dutycycle association table. It works fine as
> > long as your voltage(dutycycle) function is linear, but also has the
> > following constraints:
> > 
> > - dutycycle for min_uV = 0%
> > - dutycycle for max_uV = 100%
> > - dutycycle for min_uV < dutycycle for max_uV
> > 
> > While the linearity constraint is acceptable for now, we sometimes need to
> > restrict of the PWM range (to limit the maximum/minimum voltage for
> > example) or have a min_uV_dutycycle > max_uV_dutycycle (this could be
> > tweaked with PWM polarity, but not all PWMs support inverted polarity).
> > 
> > Add the pwm-dutycycle-range and pwm-dutycycle-unit DT properties to define
> > such constraints. If those properties are not defined, the PWM regulator
> > use the default pwm-dutycycle-range = <0 100> and
> > pwm-dutycycle-unit = <100> values (existing behavior).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> > index c39ecd1..2e70eb1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c  
> 
> ...
> 
> > @@ -132,31 +141,67 @@ static int pwm_regulator_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *dev)
> >  static int pwm_regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> >  {
> >  	struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > +	unsigned int min_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.min_uV_dutycycle;
> > +	unsigned int max_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.max_uV_dutycycle;
> > +	unsigned int duty_unit = drvdata->continuous.dutycycle_unit;
> >  	int min_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
> > -	int diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - min_uV;
> > +	int max_uV = rdev->constraints->max_uV;
> > +	int diff_uV = max_uV - min_uV;
> >  	struct pwm_state pstate;
> > +	unsigned int diff_duty;
> > +	unsigned int voltage;
> >  
> >  	pwm_get_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
> >  
> > -	return min_uV + pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, diff);
> > +	voltage = pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, duty_unit);
> > +
> > +	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty) {  
> 
> I still might have appreciated a comment above this line (and similar
> in set_voltage()) to help explain why max can be less than min -- you
> have it in the commit message, but nowhere in the code. Not a big deal,
> and the code looks otherwise good:

Sure, I'll add more comments in the next version.

Thanks,

Boris

> 
> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> 
> 
> > +		voltage = min_uV_duty - voltage;
> > +		diff_duty = min_uV_duty - max_uV_duty;
> > +	} else {
> > +		voltage = voltage - min_uV_duty;
> > +		diff_duty = max_uV_duty - min_uV_duty;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	voltage = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)voltage * diff_uV, diff_duty);
> > +
> > +	return voltage + min_uV;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> > -					int min_uV, int max_uV,
> > -					unsigned *selector)
> > +				     int req_min_uV, int req_max_uV,
> > +				     unsigned int *selector)
> >  {
> >  	struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > +	unsigned int min_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.min_uV_dutycycle;
> > +	unsigned int max_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.max_uV_dutycycle;
> > +	unsigned int duty_unit = drvdata->continuous.dutycycle_unit;
> >  	unsigned int ramp_delay = rdev->constraints->ramp_delay;
> > -	unsigned int req_diff = min_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
> > +	int min_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
> > +	int max_uV = rdev->constraints->max_uV;
> > +	int diff_uV = max_uV - min_uV;
> >  	struct pwm_state pstate;
> > -	unsigned int diff;
> > +	unsigned int diff_duty;
> > +	unsigned int dutycycle;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> >  	pwm_prepare_new_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
> > -	diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
> >  
> > -	/* We pass diff as the scale to get a uV precision. */
> > -	pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, req_diff, diff);
> > +	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty)
> > +		diff_duty = min_uV_duty - max_uV_duty;
> > +	else
> > +		diff_duty = max_uV_duty - min_uV_duty;
> > +
> > +	dutycycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)(req_min_uV - min_uV) *
> > +					  diff_duty,
> > +					  diff_uV);
> > +
> > +	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty)
> > +		dutycycle = min_uV_duty - dutycycle;
> > +	else
> > +		dutycycle = min_uV_duty + dutycycle;
> > +
> > +	pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, dutycycle, duty_unit);
> >  
> >  	ret = pwm_apply_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
> >  	if (ret) {  
> 
> [...]
> 
> Brian



-- 
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 13/14] regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:30:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160604083009.25e7fac6@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160603210308.GK124478@google.com>

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:03:08 -0700
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:23:11AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The continuous mode allows one to declare a PWM regulator without having
> > to declare the voltage <-> dutycycle association table. It works fine as
> > long as your voltage(dutycycle) function is linear, but also has the
> > following constraints:
> > 
> > - dutycycle for min_uV = 0%
> > - dutycycle for max_uV = 100%
> > - dutycycle for min_uV < dutycycle for max_uV
> > 
> > While the linearity constraint is acceptable for now, we sometimes need to
> > restrict of the PWM range (to limit the maximum/minimum voltage for
> > example) or have a min_uV_dutycycle > max_uV_dutycycle (this could be
> > tweaked with PWM polarity, but not all PWMs support inverted polarity).
> > 
> > Add the pwm-dutycycle-range and pwm-dutycycle-unit DT properties to define
> > such constraints. If those properties are not defined, the PWM regulator
> > use the default pwm-dutycycle-range = <0 100> and
> > pwm-dutycycle-unit = <100> values (existing behavior).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> > index c39ecd1..2e70eb1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c  
> 
> ...
> 
> > @@ -132,31 +141,67 @@ static int pwm_regulator_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *dev)
> >  static int pwm_regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> >  {
> >  	struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > +	unsigned int min_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.min_uV_dutycycle;
> > +	unsigned int max_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.max_uV_dutycycle;
> > +	unsigned int duty_unit = drvdata->continuous.dutycycle_unit;
> >  	int min_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
> > -	int diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - min_uV;
> > +	int max_uV = rdev->constraints->max_uV;
> > +	int diff_uV = max_uV - min_uV;
> >  	struct pwm_state pstate;
> > +	unsigned int diff_duty;
> > +	unsigned int voltage;
> >  
> >  	pwm_get_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
> >  
> > -	return min_uV + pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, diff);
> > +	voltage = pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, duty_unit);
> > +
> > +	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty) {  
> 
> I still might have appreciated a comment above this line (and similar
> in set_voltage()) to help explain why max can be less than min -- you
> have it in the commit message, but nowhere in the code. Not a big deal,
> and the code looks otherwise good:

Sure, I'll add more comments in the next version.

Thanks,

Boris

> 
> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> 
> 
> > +		voltage = min_uV_duty - voltage;
> > +		diff_duty = min_uV_duty - max_uV_duty;
> > +	} else {
> > +		voltage = voltage - min_uV_duty;
> > +		diff_duty = max_uV_duty - min_uV_duty;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	voltage = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)voltage * diff_uV, diff_duty);
> > +
> > +	return voltage + min_uV;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> > -					int min_uV, int max_uV,
> > -					unsigned *selector)
> > +				     int req_min_uV, int req_max_uV,
> > +				     unsigned int *selector)
> >  {
> >  	struct pwm_regulator_data *drvdata = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> > +	unsigned int min_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.min_uV_dutycycle;
> > +	unsigned int max_uV_duty = drvdata->continuous.max_uV_dutycycle;
> > +	unsigned int duty_unit = drvdata->continuous.dutycycle_unit;
> >  	unsigned int ramp_delay = rdev->constraints->ramp_delay;
> > -	unsigned int req_diff = min_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
> > +	int min_uV = rdev->constraints->min_uV;
> > +	int max_uV = rdev->constraints->max_uV;
> > +	int diff_uV = max_uV - min_uV;
> >  	struct pwm_state pstate;
> > -	unsigned int diff;
> > +	unsigned int diff_duty;
> > +	unsigned int dutycycle;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> >  	pwm_prepare_new_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
> > -	diff = rdev->constraints->max_uV - rdev->constraints->min_uV;
> >  
> > -	/* We pass diff as the scale to get a uV precision. */
> > -	pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, req_diff, diff);
> > +	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty)
> > +		diff_duty = min_uV_duty - max_uV_duty;
> > +	else
> > +		diff_duty = max_uV_duty - min_uV_duty;
> > +
> > +	dutycycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)(req_min_uV - min_uV) *
> > +					  diff_duty,
> > +					  diff_uV);
> > +
> > +	if (max_uV_duty < min_uV_duty)
> > +		dutycycle = min_uV_duty - dutycycle;
> > +	else
> > +		dutycycle = min_uV_duty + dutycycle;
> > +
> > +	pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&pstate, dutycycle, duty_unit);
> >  
> >  	ret = pwm_apply_state(drvdata->pwm, &pstate);
> >  	if (ret) {  
> 
> [...]
> 
> Brian



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

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-04  6:30 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
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 [this message]
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=20160604083009.25e7fac6@bbrezillon \
    --to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.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.