All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "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>,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 22:51:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e8595ff-2ebb-76a6-a43d-d670154c0352@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200729081218.GH3703480@smile.fi.intel.com>

Hi,

On 7/29/20 10:12 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 09:55:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 7/28/20 8:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Maybe I'm too picky, but I would go even further and split apply to two versions
>>>
>>> static int pwm_lpss_apply_on_resume(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>> 			  const struct pwm_state *state)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
>>>>    	if (state->enabled)
>>>>    		return pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, !pwm_is_enabled(pwm));
>>>>    	if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
>>>>    		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
>>>>    	return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>
>>> and another one for !from_resume.
>>
>> It is a bit picky :) But that is actually not a bad idea, although I would write
>> it like this for more symmetry with the normal (not on_resume) apply version,
>> while at it I also renamed the function:
>>
>> /*
>>   * This is a mirror of pwm_lpss_apply() without pm_runtime reference handling
>>   * for restoring the PWM state on resume.
>>   */
>> static int pwm_lpss_restore_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>                                    const struct pwm_state *state)
>> {
>>     	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
>> 	int ret = 0;
>>
>>     	if (state->enabled)
>>     		ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, !pwm_is_enabled(pwm));
>>     	else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
>>     		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
>>
>>     	return ret;
>> }
>>
>> Would that work for you?
> 
> Yes.

Ok, I've added the suggested/discussed helper in my personal tree. Is it ok
if I add your Reviewed-by with that change in place. This is the last unreviewed
bit, so I would rather not respin the series just for this (there will be one
more respin when I rebase it on 5.9-rc1).

If you want to check out what the patch looks like now, the new version from
my personal tree is here:

https://github.com/jwrdegoede/linux-sunxi/commit/e4869830d88bb8cb8251718e0086ac189abc0f56

Regards,

Hans


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	"Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 22:51:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e8595ff-2ebb-76a6-a43d-d670154c0352@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200729081218.GH3703480@smile.fi.intel.com>

Hi,

On 7/29/20 10:12 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 09:55:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 7/28/20 8:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Maybe I'm too picky, but I would go even further and split apply to two versions
>>>
>>> static int pwm_lpss_apply_on_resume(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>> 			  const struct pwm_state *state)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
>>>>    	if (state->enabled)
>>>>    		return pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, !pwm_is_enabled(pwm));
>>>>    	if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
>>>>    		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
>>>>    	return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>
>>> and another one for !from_resume.
>>
>> It is a bit picky :) But that is actually not a bad idea, although I would write
>> it like this for more symmetry with the normal (not on_resume) apply version,
>> while at it I also renamed the function:
>>
>> /*
>>   * This is a mirror of pwm_lpss_apply() without pm_runtime reference handling
>>   * for restoring the PWM state on resume.
>>   */
>> static int pwm_lpss_restore_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>                                    const struct pwm_state *state)
>> {
>>     	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
>> 	int ret = 0;
>>
>>     	if (state->enabled)
>>     		ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, !pwm_is_enabled(pwm));
>>     	else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
>>     		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
>>
>>     	return ret;
>> }
>>
>> Would that work for you?
> 
> Yes.

Ok, I've added the suggested/discussed helper in my personal tree. Is it ok
if I add your Reviewed-by with that change in place. This is the last unreviewed
bit, so I would rather not respin the series just for this (there will be one
more respin when I rebase it on 5.9-rc1).

If you want to check out what the patch looks like now, the new version from
my personal tree is here:

https://github.com/jwrdegoede/linux-sunxi/commit/e4869830d88bb8cb8251718e0086ac189abc0f56

Regards,

Hans

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 22:51:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e8595ff-2ebb-76a6-a43d-d670154c0352@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200729081218.GH3703480@smile.fi.intel.com>

Hi,

On 7/29/20 10:12 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 09:55:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 7/28/20 8:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Maybe I'm too picky, but I would go even further and split apply to two versions
>>>
>>> static int pwm_lpss_apply_on_resume(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>> 			  const struct pwm_state *state)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
>>>>    	if (state->enabled)
>>>>    		return pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, !pwm_is_enabled(pwm));
>>>>    	if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
>>>>    		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
>>>>    	return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>
>>> and another one for !from_resume.
>>
>> It is a bit picky :) But that is actually not a bad idea, although I would write
>> it like this for more symmetry with the normal (not on_resume) apply version,
>> while at it I also renamed the function:
>>
>> /*
>>   * This is a mirror of pwm_lpss_apply() without pm_runtime reference handling
>>   * for restoring the PWM state on resume.
>>   */
>> static int pwm_lpss_restore_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>                                    const struct pwm_state *state)
>> {
>>     	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
>> 	int ret = 0;
>>
>>     	if (state->enabled)
>>     		ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, !pwm_is_enabled(pwm));
>>     	else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
>>     		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
>>
>>     	return ret;
>> }
>>
>> Would that work for you?
> 
> Yes.

Ok, I've added the suggested/discussed helper in my personal tree. Is it ok
if I add your Reviewed-by with that change in place. This is the last unreviewed
bit, so I would rather not respin the series just for this (there will be one
more respin when I rebase it on 5.9-rc1).

If you want to check out what the patch looks like now, the new version from
my personal tree is here:

https://github.com/jwrdegoede/linux-sunxi/commit/e4869830d88bb8cb8251718e0086ac189abc0f56

Regards,

Hans

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-02 20:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 121+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-17 13:37 [PATCH v5 00/16] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 01/16] ACPI / LPSS: Resume Cherry Trail PWM controller in no-irq phase Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 02/16] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (at activation) Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 03/16] pwm: lpss: Fix off by one error in base_unit math in pwm_lpss_prepare() Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 18:45   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 18:45     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 18:45     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 19:49     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 19:49       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 19:49       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 18:57   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 18:57     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 18:57     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 19:55     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 19:55       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 19:55       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-29  8:12       ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29  8:12         ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29  8:12         ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-02 20:51         ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2020-08-02 20:51           ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-08-02 20:51           ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-03  8:41           ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-03  8:41             ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-03  8:41             ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 07/16] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256 Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 19:36   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 19:36     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 19:36     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-28 20:00     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 20:00       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-28 20:00       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-29  8:13   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29  8:13     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29  8:13     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 08/16] pwm: crc: Fix off-by-one error in the clock-divider calculations Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-29 10:28   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:28     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:28     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 09/16] pwm: crc: Fix period changes not having any effect Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-29 10:30   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:30     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:30     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 10/16] pwm: crc: Enable/disable PWM output on enable/disable Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-29 10:32   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:32     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:32     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 11/16] pwm: crc: Implement apply() method to support the new atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-29 10:51   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:51     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:51     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 13/16] drm/i915: panel: Add get_vbt_pwm_freq() helper Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37 ` [PATCH v5 14/16] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:37   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:44 ` [PATCH v5 15/16] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM min setting " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:44   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:44   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:44   ` [PATCH v5 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:44     ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:44     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-17 13:44     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-27  7:41 ` [PATCH v5 00/16] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Thierry Reding
2020-07-27  7:41   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-07-27  7:41   ` Thierry Reding
2020-07-29  8:23   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29  8:23     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29  8:23     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29  9:32     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-29  9:32       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-29  9:32       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-30  9:26       ` Thierry Reding
2020-07-30  9:26         ` [Intel-gfx] " Thierry Reding
2020-07-30  9:26         ` Thierry Reding
2020-08-01 14:33         ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-01 14:33           ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-08-01 14:33           ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-29 10:54 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-29 10:54   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-01 14:38   ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-01 14:38     ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-08-01 14:38     ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-02 11:25     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-02 11:25       ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-02 11:25       ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-02 19:43       ` Hans de Goede
2020-08-02 19:43         ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-08-02 19:43         ` 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=0e8595ff-2ebb-76a6-a43d-d670154c0352@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=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --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 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.