All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
To: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: sunxi: allow the pwm to finish its pulse before disable
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 22:25:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160924202502.GF16901@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1473411668.731.75.camel@schinagl.nl>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1966 bytes --]

Hi Oliver,

Sorry for the slow answer.

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 11:01:08AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> > > > > *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > > > >  	spin_lock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock);
> > > > >  	val = sun4i_pwm_readl(sun4i_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG);
> > > > >  	val &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_EN, pwm->hwpwm);
> > > > > +	sun4i_pwm_writel(sun4i_pwm, val, PWM_CTRL_REG);
> > > > > +	spin_unlock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Allow for the PWM hardware to finish its last
> > > > > toggle.
> > > > > The pulse
> > > > > +	 * may have just started and thus we should wait a
> > > > > full
> > > > > period.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	ndelay(pwm_get_period(pwm));
> > > > 
> > > > Can't that use the ready bit as well?
> > > It depends whatever is cheaper. If we disable the pwm, we have to
> > > commit that request to hardware first. Then we have to read back
> > > the
> > > has ready and in the strange situation it is not, wait for it to
> > > become
> > > ready?
> > 
> > If it works like you were suggesting, yes.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Also, that would mean we would loop in a spin lock, or keep
> > > setting/clearing an additional spinlock to read the ready bit.
> > 
> > You're using a spin_lock, so it's not that bad, but I was just
> > suggesting replacing the ndelay.
>
> If you say the spin_lock + wait for the ready is just as expensive as
> the ndelay, or the ndelay is less preferred, then I gladly make the
> change;

For the spin_lock part, I was just comparing it to a
spin_lock_irqsave, which is pretty expensive since it masks all the
interrupts in the system, introducing latencies.

> but I think we need the ndelay for the else where we do not
> have the ready flag (A10 or A13 iirc?)

Hmmmm, good point. But that would also apply to your second patch
then, wouldn't it?

Maxime

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: sunxi: allow the pwm to finish its pulse before disable
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 22:25:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160924202502.GF16901@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1473411668.731.75.camel@schinagl.nl>

Hi Oliver,

Sorry for the slow answer.

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 11:01:08AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> > > > > *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > > > > ?	spin_lock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock);
> > > > > ?	val = sun4i_pwm_readl(sun4i_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG);
> > > > > ?	val &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_EN, pwm->hwpwm);
> > > > > +	sun4i_pwm_writel(sun4i_pwm, val, PWM_CTRL_REG);
> > > > > +	spin_unlock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Allow for the PWM hardware to finish its last
> > > > > toggle.
> > > > > The pulse
> > > > > +	?* may have just started and thus we should wait a
> > > > > full
> > > > > period.
> > > > > +	?*/
> > > > > +	ndelay(pwm_get_period(pwm));
> > > > 
> > > > Can't that use the ready bit as well?
> > > It depends whatever is cheaper. If we disable the pwm, we have to
> > > commit that request to hardware first. Then we have to read back
> > > the
> > > has ready and in the strange situation it is not, wait for it to
> > > become
> > > ready?
> > 
> > If it works like you were suggesting, yes.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Also, that would mean we would loop in a spin lock, or keep
> > > setting/clearing an additional spinlock to read the ready bit.
> > 
> > You're using a spin_lock, so it's not that bad, but I was just
> > suggesting replacing the ndelay.
>
> If you say the spin_lock + wait for the ready is just as expensive as
> the ndelay, or the ndelay is less preferred, then I gladly make the
> change;

For the spin_lock part, I was just comparing it to a
spin_lock_irqsave, which is pretty expensive since it masks all the
interrupts in the system, introducing latencies.

> but I think we need the ndelay for the else where we do not
> have the ready flag (A10 or A13 iirc?)

Hmmmm, good point. But that would also apply to your second patch
then, wouldn't it?

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160924/cb63cb8f/attachment.sig>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-26  6:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-25 17:50 [PATCHv2 0/2] pwm: sunxi: give the pwm IP block more time Olliver Schinagl
2016-08-25 17:50 ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-08-25 17:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] pwm: sunxi: allow the pwm to finish its pulse before disable Olliver Schinagl
2016-08-25 17:50   ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-08-26 22:19   ` Maxime Ripard
2016-08-26 22:19     ` Maxime Ripard
2016-09-06  7:12     ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-09-06  7:12       ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-09-06 19:51       ` Maxime Ripard
2016-09-06 19:51         ` Maxime Ripard
2016-09-09  9:01         ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-09-09  9:01           ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-09-24 20:25           ` Maxime Ripard [this message]
2016-09-24 20:25             ` Maxime Ripard
2016-09-26  8:46             ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-09-26  8:46               ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-09-27 20:16               ` Maxime Ripard
2016-09-27 20:16                 ` Maxime Ripard
2016-12-08 13:23     ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-12-12 12:24       ` Maxime Ripard
2016-12-12 12:24         ` Maxime Ripard
2017-01-03 15:59         ` Olliver Schinagl
2017-01-03 15:59           ` Olliver Schinagl
2017-01-03 16:55           ` Alexandre Belloni
2017-01-03 16:55             ` Alexandre Belloni
2017-01-03 16:55             ` Alexandre Belloni
2017-01-04  6:36             ` Thierry Reding
2017-01-04  6:36               ` Thierry Reding
2017-01-04  6:36               ` Thierry Reding
2016-09-23 14:02   ` [1/2] " Jonathan Liu
2016-09-23 14:02     ` Jonathan Liu
2016-09-23 14:03     ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-09-23 14:03       ` Olliver Schinagl
2017-05-05  1:54       ` Jonathan Liu
2017-05-05  1:54         ` Jonathan Liu
2016-08-25 17:50 ` [PATCH 2/2] pwm: sunxi: Yield some time to the pwm-block to become ready Olliver Schinagl
2016-08-25 17:50   ` Olliver Schinagl
2016-08-26 22:25   ` Maxime Ripard
2016-08-26 22:25     ` Maxime Ripard

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=20160924202502.GF16901@lukather \
    --to=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oliver@schinagl.nl \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    --cc=wens@csie.org \
    /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.