[PATCH v5 00/16] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API

[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]

Hi All,

Here is v5 of my patch series converting the i915 driver's code for
controlling the panel's backlight with an external PWM controller to
use the atomic PWM API. See below for the changelog.

This series consists of 4 parts:

1. acpi_lpss fixes workarounds for Cherry Trail DSTD nastiness
2. various fixes to the pwm-lpss driver
3. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and
4. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API

The involved acpi_lpss and pwm drivers do not see a whole lot of churn,
so the plan is to merge this all through drm-intel-next-queued (dinq)
once all the patches are reviewed / have acks.

Specifically patches 5-9, 11 still need an Acked- / Reviewed-by

Andy, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Specifically
patches 5-6 should address your review remarks from v4 of this set
and I've addressed your review remarks on patches 7-9 in v3 already.
A review of patch 11 would also be welcome

Uwe, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches?

Uwe, may I have your Acked-by for merging this series through the
drm-intel-next-queued branch once all PWM patches have an Acked- or
Reviewed-by ?

This series has been tested (and re-tested after adding various bug-fixes)
extensively. It has been tested on the following devices:

-Asus T100TA  BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM
-Toshiba WT8-A  BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM
-Thundersoft TS178 BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM, inverse PWM
-Asus T100HA  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM
-Terra Pad 1061  BYT + LPSS PWM
-Trekstor Twin 10.1 BYT + LPSS PWM
-Asus T101HA  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM
-GPD Pocket  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM

Changelog:
Changes in v5:
- Dropped the "pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0"
  patch. The base_unit == 0 condition should never happen and sofar it is
  unclear what the proper behavior / correct values to store in the
  pwm_state should be when this does happen.  Since this patch was added as
  an extra pwm-lpss fix in v4 of this patch-set and otherwise is orthogonal
  to the of this patch-set just drop it (again).
- "[PATCH 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value"
  - Use clamp_val(... instead of clam_t(unsigned long long, ...
- "[PATCH 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper"
  - This is a new patch in v5 of this patchset
- [PATCH 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
  - Use the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper

Changes in v4:
- "[PATCH v4 06/16] pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0"
  - This is a new patch in v4 of this patchset
- "[PATCH v4 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method"
  - Use DIV_ROUND_UP when calculating the period and duty_cycle values
- "[PATCH v4 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller"
  - Add a note to the commit message about the changes in pwm_disable_backlight()
  - Use the pwm_set/get_relative_duty_cycle() helpers

Changes in v3:
- "[PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value"
  - Use base_unit_range - 1 as maximum value for the clamp()
- "[PATCH v3 05/15] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume"
  - 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.
- PATCH v3 6 - 11 pwm-crc changes:
  - Various small changes resulting from the reviews by Andy and Uwe,
    including some refactoring of the patches to reduce the amount of churn
    in the patch-set

Changes in v2:
- Fix coverletter subject
- Drop accidentally included debugging patch
- "[PATCH v3 02/15] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (
  - Move #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE define to group it with LPSS_SAVE_CTX

Regards,

Hans

[PATCH v5 01/16] ACPI / LPSS: Resume Cherry Trail PWM controller in no-irq phase

[Hans de Goede]

The DSDTs on most Cherry Trail devices have an ugly clutch where the PWM
controller gets poked from the _PS0 method of the graphics-card device:

	Local0 = PSAT /* \_SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PSAT */
	If (((Local0 & 0x03) == 0x03))
	{
	    PSAT &= 0xFFFFFFFC
	    Local1 = PSAT /* \_SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PSAT */
	    RSTA = Zero
	    RSTF = Zero
	    RSTA = One
	    RSTF = One
	    PWMB |= 0xC0000000
	    PWMC = PWMB /* \_SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PWMB */
	}

Where PSAT is the power-status register of the PWM controller, so if it
is in D3 when the GFX0 device's PS0 method runs then it will turn it on
and restore the PWM ctrl register value it saved from its PS3 handler.
Note not only does it restore it, it ors it with 0xC0000000 turning it
on at a time where we may not want it to get turned on at all.

The pwm_get call which the i915 driver does to get a reference to the
PWM controller, already adds a device-link making the GFX0 device a
consumer of the PWM device. So it should already have been resumed when
the above AML runs and the AML should thus not do its undesirable poking
of the PWM controller register.

But the PCI core powers on PCI devices in the no-irq resume phase and
thus calls the troublesome PS0 method in the no-irq resume phase.
Where as LPSS devices by default are resumed in the early resume phase.

This commit sets the resume_from_noirq flag in the bsw_pwm_dev_desc
struct, so that Cherry Trail PWM controllers will be resumed in the
no-irq phase. Together with the device-link added by the pwm-get this
ensures that the PWM controller will be on when the troublesome PS0
method runs, which stops it from poking the PWM controller.

Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
index 5e2bfbcf526f..67892fc0b822 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
@@ -257,6 +257,7 @@ static const struct lpss_device_desc bsw_pwm_dev_desc = {
 	.flags = LPSS_SAVE_CTX | LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY,
 	.prv_offset = 0x800,
 	.setup = bsw_pwm_setup,
+	.resume_from_noirq = true,
 };
 
 static const struct lpss_device_desc byt_uart_dev_desc = {
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH v5 02/16] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (at activation)

[Hans de Goede]

The DSDTs on most Cherry Trail devices have an ugly clutch where the PWM
controller gets turned off from the _PS3 method of the graphics-card dev:

            Method (_PS3, 0, Serialized)  // _PS3: Power State 3
            {
                ...
                            PWMB = PWMC /* \_SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PWMC */
                            PSAT |= 0x03
                            Local0 = PSAT /* \_SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PSAT */
                ...
            }

Where PSAT is the power-status register of the PWM controller.

Since the i915 driver will do a pwm_get on the pwm device as it uses it to
control the LCD panel backlight, there is a device-link marking the i915
device as a consumer of the pwm device. So that the PWM controller will
always be suspended after the i915 driver suspends (which is the right
thing to do). This causes the above GFX0 PS3 AML code to run before
acpi_lpss.c calls acpi_lpss_save_ctx().

So on these devices the PWM controller will already be off when
acpi_lpss_save_ctx() runs. This causes it to read/save all 1-s (0xffffffff)
as ctx register values.

When these bogus values get restored on resume the PWM controller actually
keeps working, since most bits are reserved, but this does set bit 3 of
the LPSS General purpose register, which for the PWM controller has the
following function: "This bit is re-used to support 32kHz slow mode.
Default is 19.2MHz as PWM source clock".

This causes the clock of the PWM controller to switch from 19.2MHz to
32KHz, which is a slow-down of a factor 600. Surprisingly enough so far
there have been few bug reports about this. This is likely because the
i915 driver was hardcoding the PWM frequency to 46 KHz, which divided
by 600 would result in a PWM frequency of approx. 78 Hz, which mostly
still works fine. There are some bug reports about the LCD backlight
flickering after suspend/resume which are likely caused by this issue.

But with the upcoming patch-series to finally switch the i915 drivers
code for external PWM controllers to use the atomic API and to honor
the PWM frequency specified in the video BIOS (VBT), this becomes a much
bigger problem. On most cases the VBT specifies either 200 Hz or 20
KHz as PWM frequency, which with the mentioned issue ends up being either
1/3 Hz, where the backlight actually visible blinks on and off every 3s,
or in 33 Hz and horrible flickering of the backlight.

There are a number of possible solutions to this problem:

1. Make acpi_lpss_save_ctx() run before GFX0._PS3
 Pro: Clean solution from pov of not medling with save/restore ctx code
 Con: As mentioned the current ordering is the right thing to do
 Con: Requires assymmetry in at what suspend/resume phase we do the save vs
      restore, requiring more suspend/resume ordering hacks in already
      convoluted acpi_lpss.c suspend/resume code.
2. Do some sort of save once mode for the LPSS ctx
 Pro: Reasonably clean
 Con: Needs a new LPSS flag + code changes to handle the flag
3. Detect we have failed to save the ctx registers and do not restore them
 Pro: Not PWM specific, might help with issues on other LPSS devices too
 Con: If we can get away with not restoring the ctx why bother with it at
      all?
4. Do not save the ctx for CHT PWM controllers
 Pro: Clean, as simple as dropping a flag?
 Con: Not so simple as dropping a flag, needs a new flag to ensure that
      we still do lpss_deassert_reset() on device activation.
5. Make the pwm-lpss code fixup the LPSS-context registers
 Pro: Keeps acpi_lpss.c code clean
 Con: Moves knowledge of LPSS-context into the pwm-lpss.c code

1 and 5 both do not seem to be a desirable way forward.

3 and 4 seem ok, but they both assume that restoring the LPSS-context
registers is not necessary. I have done a couple of test and those do
show that restoring the LPSS-context indeed does not seem to be necessary
on devices using s2idle suspend (and successfully reaching S0i3). But I
have no hardware to test deep / S3 suspend. So I'm not sure that not
restoring the context is safe.

That leaves solution 2, which is about as simple / clean as 3 and 4,
so this commit fixes the described problem by implementing a new
LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE flag and setting that for the CHT PWM controllers.

Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Move #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE define to group it with LPSS_SAVE_CTX
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
index 67892fc0b822..a8d7d83ac761 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
@@ -67,7 +67,15 @@ ACPI_MODULE_NAME("acpi_lpss");
 #define LPSS_CLK_DIVIDER		BIT(2)
 #define LPSS_LTR			BIT(3)
 #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX			BIT(4)
-#define LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY		BIT(5)
+/*
+ * For some devices the DSDT AML code for another device turns off the device
+ * before our suspend handler runs, causing us to read/save all 1-s (0xffffffff)
+ * as ctx register values.
+ * Luckily these devices always use the same ctx register values, so we can
+ * work around this by saving the ctx registers once on activation.
+ */
+#define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE		BIT(5)
+#define LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY		BIT(6)
 
 struct lpss_private_data;
 
@@ -254,7 +262,7 @@ static const struct lpss_device_desc byt_pwm_dev_desc = {
 };
 
 static const struct lpss_device_desc bsw_pwm_dev_desc = {
-	.flags = LPSS_SAVE_CTX | LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY,
+	.flags = LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE | LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY,
 	.prv_offset = 0x800,
 	.setup = bsw_pwm_setup,
 	.resume_from_noirq = true,
@@ -885,9 +893,14 @@ static int acpi_lpss_activate(struct device *dev)
 	 * we have to deassert reset line to be sure that ->probe() will
 	 * recognize the device.
 	 */
-	if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & LPSS_SAVE_CTX)
+	if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & (LPSS_SAVE_CTX | LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE))
 		lpss_deassert_reset(pdata);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM
+	if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE)
+		acpi_lpss_save_ctx(dev, pdata);
+#endif
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -1031,7 +1044,7 @@ static int acpi_lpss_resume(struct device *dev)
 
 	acpi_lpss_d3_to_d0_delay(pdata);
 
-	if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & LPSS_SAVE_CTX)
+	if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & (LPSS_SAVE_CTX | LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE))
 		acpi_lpss_restore_ctx(dev, pdata);
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH v5 03/16] pwm: lpss: Fix off by one error in base_unit math in pwm_lpss_prepare()

[Hans de Goede]

According to the data-sheet the way the PWM controller works is that
each input clock-cycle the base_unit gets added to a N bit counter and
that counter overflowing determines the PWM output frequency.

So assuming e.g. a 16 bit counter this means that if base_unit is set to 1,
after 65535 input clock-cycles the counter has been increased from 0 to
65535 and it will overflow on the next cycle, so it will overflow after
every 65536 clock cycles and thus the calculations done in
pwm_lpss_prepare() should use 65536 and not 65535.

This commit fixes this. Note this also aligns the calculations in
pwm_lpss_prepare() with those in pwm_lpss_get_state().

Note this effectively reverts commit 684309e5043e ("pwm: lpss: Avoid
potential overflow of base_unit"). The next patch in this series really
fixes the potential overflow of the base_unit value.

Fixes: 684309e5043e ("pwm: lpss: Avoid potential overflow of base_unit")
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- Add Fixes tag
- Add Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko tag
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index 9d965ffe66d1..43b1fc634af1 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	 * The equation is:
 	 * base_unit = round(base_unit_range * freq / c)
 	 */
-	base_unit_range = BIT(lpwm->info->base_unit_bits) - 1;
+	base_unit_range = BIT(lpwm->info->base_unit_bits);
 	freq *= base_unit_range;
 
 	base_unit = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(freq, c);
@@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 
 	orig_ctrl = ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm);
 	ctrl &= ~PWM_ON_TIME_DIV_MASK;
-	ctrl &= ~(base_unit_range << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT);
-	base_unit &= base_unit_range;
+	ctrl &= ~((base_unit_range - 1) << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT);
+	base_unit &= (base_unit_range - 1);
 	ctrl |= (u32) base_unit << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT;
 	ctrl |= on_time_div;
 
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH v5 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value

[Hans de Goede]

When the user requests a high enough period ns value, then the
calculations in pwm_lpss_prepare() might result in a base_unit value of 0.

But according to the data-sheet the way the PWM controller works is that
each input clock-cycle the base_unit gets added to a N bit counter and
that counter overflowing determines the PWM output frequency. Adding 0
to the counter is a no-op. The data-sheet even explicitly states that
writing 0 to the base_unit bits will result in the PWM outputting a
continuous 0 signal.

When the user requestes a low enough period ns value, then the
calculations in pwm_lpss_prepare() might result in a base_unit value
which is bigger then base_unit_range - 1. Currently the codes for this
deals with this by applying a mask:

	base_unit &= (base_unit_range - 1);

But this means that we let the value overflow the range, we throw away the
higher bits and store whatever value is left in the lower bits into the
register leading to a random output frequency, rather then clamping the
output frequency to the highest frequency which the hardware can do.

This commit fixes both issues by clamping the base_unit value to be
between 1 and (base_unit_range - 1).

Fixes: 684309e5043e ("pwm: lpss: Avoid potential overflow of base_unit")
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v5:
- Use clamp_val(... instead of clam_t(unsigned long long, ...

Changes in v3:
- Change upper limit of clamp to (base_unit_range - 1)
- Add Fixes tag
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index 43b1fc634af1..da9bc3d10104 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	freq *= base_unit_range;
 
 	base_unit = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(freq, c);
+	/* base_unit must not be 0 and we also want to avoid overflowing it */
+	base_unit = clamp_val(base_unit, 1, base_unit_range - 1);
 
 	on_time_div = 255ULL * duty_ns;
 	do_div(on_time_div, period_ns);
@@ -105,7 +107,6 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	orig_ctrl = ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm);
 	ctrl &= ~PWM_ON_TIME_DIV_MASK;
 	ctrl &= ~((base_unit_range - 1) << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT);
-	base_unit &= (base_unit_range - 1);
 	ctrl |= (u32) base_unit << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT;
 	ctrl |= on_time_div;
 
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH v5 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper

[Hans de Goede]

In the not-enabled -> enabled path pwm_lpss_apply() needs to get a
runtime-pm reference; and then on any errors it needs to release it
again.

This leads to somewhat hard to read code. This commit introduces a new
pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper and moves all the steps necessary for
the not-enabled -> enabled transition there, so that we can error check
the entire transition in a single place and only have one pm_runtime_put()
on failure call site.

While working on this I noticed that the enabled -> enabled (update
settings) path was quite similar, so I've added an enable parameter to
the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper, which allows using it in that
path too.

Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index da9bc3d10104..8a136ba2a583 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -122,41 +122,48 @@ 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_prepare_enable(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm,
+				   struct pwm_device *pwm,
+				   const struct pwm_state *state,
+				   bool enable)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
+	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == false);
+	ret = pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == true);
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			  const struct pwm_state *state)
 {
 	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
-	int ret;
+	int ret = 0;
 
 	if (state->enabled) {
 		if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
 			pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
-			ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
-			if (ret) {
-				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) {
+			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, true);
+			if (ret)
 				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
-				return ret;
-			}
-			pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true);
 		} else {
-			ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
-			if (ret)
-				return ret;
-			pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
-			return pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm);
+			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, false);
 		}
 	} else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
 		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
 		pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
 	}
 
-	return 0;
+	return ret;
 }
 
 static void pwm_lpss_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH v5 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> In the not-enabled -> enabled path pwm_lpss_apply() needs to get a
> runtime-pm reference; and then on any errors it needs to release it
> again.
> 
> This leads to somewhat hard to read code. This commit introduces a new
> pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper and moves all the steps necessary for
> the not-enabled -> enabled transition there, so that we can error check
> the entire transition in a single place and only have one pm_runtime_put()
> on failure call site.
> 
> While working on this I noticed that the enabled -> enabled (update
> settings) path was quite similar, so I've added an enable parameter to
> the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper, which allows using it in that
> path too.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
But see below.

> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
> index da9bc3d10104..8a136ba2a583 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
> @@ -122,41 +122,48 @@ 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_prepare_enable(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm,
> +				   struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +				   const struct pwm_state *state,
> +				   bool enable)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
> +	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == false);
> +	ret = pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == true);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  			  const struct pwm_state *state)
>  {
>  	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
> -	int ret;

> +	int ret = 0;

We can avoid this change...

>  	if (state->enabled) {
>  		if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
>  			pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
> -			ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
> -			if (ret) {
> -				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) {
> +			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, true);
> +			if (ret)
>  				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
> -				return ret;
> -			}
> -			pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true);
>  		} else {
> -			ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
> -			if (ret)
> -				return ret;
> -			pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
> -			return pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm);

> +			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, false);

...by simple return directly from here. But I admit I haven't seen the next patch yet.

>  		}
>  	} else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
>  		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
>  		pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
>  	}
>  
> -	return 0;
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  
>  static void pwm_lpss_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v5 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 7/28/20 8:45 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> In the not-enabled -> enabled path pwm_lpss_apply() needs to get a
>> runtime-pm reference; and then on any errors it needs to release it
>> again.
>>
>> This leads to somewhat hard to read code. This commit introduces a new
>> pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper and moves all the steps necessary for
>> the not-enabled -> enabled transition there, so that we can error check
>> the entire transition in a single place and only have one pm_runtime_put()
>> on failure call site.
>>
>> While working on this I noticed that the enabled -> enabled (update
>> settings) path was quite similar, so I've added an enable parameter to
>> the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper, which allows using it in that
>> path too.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> But see below.
> 
>> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
>> index da9bc3d10104..8a136ba2a583 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
>> @@ -122,41 +122,48 @@ 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_prepare_enable(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm,
>> +				   struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> +				   const struct pwm_state *state,
>> +				   bool enable)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
>> +	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == false);
>> +	ret = pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == true);
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>   			  const struct pwm_state *state)
>>   {
>>   	struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
>> -	int ret;
> 
>> +	int ret = 0;
> 
> We can avoid this change...
> 
>>   	if (state->enabled) {
>>   		if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
>>   			pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
>> -			ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
>> -			if (ret) {
>> -				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) {
>> +			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, true);
>> +			if (ret)
>>   				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
>> -				return ret;
>> -			}
>> -			pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true);
>>   		} else {
>> -			ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm);
>> -			if (ret)
>> -				return ret;
>> -			pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
>> -			return pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm);
> 
>> +			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, false);
> 
> ...by simple return directly from here. But I admit I haven't seen the next patch yet.

True, but I'm not a big fan of earlier returns except for errors.

Regards,

Hans


> 
>>   		}
>>   	} else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
>>   		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
>>   		pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	return 0;
>> +	return ret;
>>   }
>>   
>>   static void pwm_lpss_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> -- 
>> 2.26.2
>>
> 

[PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume

[Hans de Goede]

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 v5:
- The changes to pwm_lpss_apply() are much cleaner now thanks to the new
  pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper.

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 | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index 8a136ba2a583..cf4eaf7ef2a2 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -143,29 +143,39 @@ static int pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-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 = 0;
 
 	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_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, true);
-			if (ret)
+			if (ret && !from_resume)
 				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
 		} else {
 			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, false);
 		}
 	} 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 ret;
 }
 
+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)
 {
@@ -278,10 +288,40 @@ 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

Re: [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 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.

...

> -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 = 0;
>  
>  	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_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, true);
> -			if (ret)
> +			if (ret && !from_resume)
>  				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
>  		} else {
>  			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, false);
>  		}
>  	} 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 ret;
>  }

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.

> +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);
> +}

...

> +		ret = __pwm_lpss_apply(&lpwm->chip, pwm, &saved_state, true);
> +		if (ret)
> +			dev_err(dev, "Error restoring state on resume\n");

I'm wondering if it's a real error why we do not bail out?
Otherwise dev_warn() ?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 7/28/20 8:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> ...
> 
>> -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 = 0;
>>   
>>   	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_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, true);
>> -			if (ret)
>> +			if (ret && !from_resume)
>>   				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
>>   		} else {
>>   			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, false);
>>   		}
>>   	} 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 ret;
>>   }
> 
> 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?

>> +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);
>> +}
> 
> ...
> 
>> +		ret = __pwm_lpss_apply(&lpwm->chip, pwm, &saved_state, true);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			dev_err(dev, "Error restoring state on resume\n");
> 
> I'm wondering if it's a real error why we do not bail out?
> Otherwise dev_warn() ?

It is a real error, but a single PWM chip might have multiple controllers
and bailing out early would mean not even trying to restore the state on
the other controllers.  As for propagating the error, AFAIK the pm framework
does not do anything with resume errors other then log an extra error.

Regards,

Hans

Re: [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume

[Andy Shevchenko]

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.

...

> > > +		ret = __pwm_lpss_apply(&lpwm->chip, pwm, &saved_state, true);
> > > +		if (ret)
> > > +			dev_err(dev, "Error restoring state on resume\n");
> > 
> > I'm wondering if it's a real error why we do not bail out?
> > Otherwise dev_warn() ?
> 
> It is a real error, but a single PWM chip might have multiple controllers
> and bailing out early would mean not even trying to restore the state on
> the other controllers.  As for propagating the error, AFAIK the pm framework
> does not do anything with resume errors other then log an extra error.

OK.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume

[Hans de Goede]

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

Re: [PATCH v5 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 10:51:34PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 7/29/20 10:12 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> 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.

Yes, go ahead!

> 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

Thanks, looks good to me.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[PATCH v5 07/16] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256

[Hans de Goede]

While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I
noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and
there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128,
and there are 256 duty-cycle steps.

The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clock-divider
setting of 1 means that the PWM output is running at 6 MHZ, if that
is true, where do these 256 duty-cycle steps come from?

This would require an internal frequency of 256 * 6 MHz = 1.5 GHz, that
seems unlikely for a PMIC which is using a silicon process optimized for
power-switching transistors. It is way more likely that there is an 8
bit counter for the duty cycle which acts as an extra fixed divider
wrt the PWM output frequency.

The main user of the pwm-crc driver is the i915 GPU driver which uses it
for backlight control. Lets compare the PWM register values set by the
video-BIOS (the GOP), assuming the extra fixed divider is present versus
the PWM frequency specified in the Video-BIOS-Tables:

Device:		PWM Hz set by BIOS	PWM Hz specified in VBT
Asus T100TA 	200			200
Asus T100HA 	200			200
Lenovo Miix 2 8	23437			20000
Toshiba WT8-A	23437			20000

So as we can see if we assume the extra division by 256 then the register
values set by the GOP are an exact match for the VBT values, where as
otherwise the values would be of by a factor of 256.

This commit fixes the period / duty_cycle calculations to take the
extra division by 256 into account.

Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- Use NSEC_PER_USEC instead of adding a new (non-sensical) NSEC_PER_MHZ define
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
index 272eeb071147..c056eb9b858c 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
@@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
 
 #define PWM_MAX_LEVEL		0xFF
 
-#define PWM_BASE_CLK		6000000  /* 6 MHz */
-#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	21333    /* 46.875KHz */
+#define PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ	6	/* 6 MHz */
+#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	5461333	/* 183 Hz */
 
 /**
  * struct crystalcove_pwm - Crystal Cove PWM controller
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 
 		/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
 		crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm);
-		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK * period_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC;
+		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
 
 		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
 					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH v5 07/16] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I
> noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and
> there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128,
> and there are 256 duty-cycle steps.
> 
> The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clock-divider
> setting of 1 means that the PWM output is running at 6 MHZ, if that
> is true, where do these 256 duty-cycle steps come from?
> 
> This would require an internal frequency of 256 * 6 MHz = 1.5 GHz, that
> seems unlikely for a PMIC which is using a silicon process optimized for
> power-switching transistors. It is way more likely that there is an 8
> bit counter for the duty cycle which acts as an extra fixed divider
> wrt the PWM output frequency.
> 
> The main user of the pwm-crc driver is the i915 GPU driver which uses it
> for backlight control. Lets compare the PWM register values set by the
> video-BIOS (the GOP), assuming the extra fixed divider is present versus
> the PWM frequency specified in the Video-BIOS-Tables:
> 
> Device:		PWM Hz set by BIOS	PWM Hz specified in VBT
> Asus T100TA 	200			200
> Asus T100HA 	200			200
> Lenovo Miix 2 8	23437			20000
> Toshiba WT8-A	23437			20000
> 
> So as we can see if we assume the extra division by 256 then the register
> values set by the GOP are an exact match for the VBT values, where as
> otherwise the values would be of by a factor of 256.
> 
> This commit fixes the period / duty_cycle calculations to take the
> extra division by 256 into account.

So, base clock is 6MHz, then 7 bit divisor. That's what original values
were for. On top of that there is 8-bit duty cycle control ("divide by 256"
whatever it means) with the output range 23.437kHz..183Hz.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Use NSEC_PER_USEC instead of adding a new (non-sensical) NSEC_PER_MHZ define
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> index 272eeb071147..c056eb9b858c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
>  
>  #define PWM_MAX_LEVEL		0xFF
>  
> -#define PWM_BASE_CLK		6000000  /* 6 MHz */
> -#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	21333    /* 46.875KHz */
> +#define PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ	6	/* 6 MHz */
> +#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	5461333	/* 183 Hz */
>  
>  /**
>   * struct crystalcove_pwm - Crystal Cove PWM controller
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  
>  		/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
>  		crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm);
> -		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK * period_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC;
> +		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
>  
>  		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
>  					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v5 07/16] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 7/28/20 9:36 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I
>> noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and
>> there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128,
>> and there are 256 duty-cycle steps.
>>
>> The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clock-divider
>> setting of 1 means that the PWM output is running at 6 MHZ, if that
>> is true, where do these 256 duty-cycle steps come from?
>>
>> This would require an internal frequency of 256 * 6 MHz = 1.5 GHz, that
>> seems unlikely for a PMIC which is using a silicon process optimized for
>> power-switching transistors. It is way more likely that there is an 8
>> bit counter for the duty cycle which acts as an extra fixed divider
>> wrt the PWM output frequency.
>>
>> The main user of the pwm-crc driver is the i915 GPU driver which uses it
>> for backlight control. Lets compare the PWM register values set by the
>> video-BIOS (the GOP), assuming the extra fixed divider is present versus
>> the PWM frequency specified in the Video-BIOS-Tables:
>>
>> Device:		PWM Hz set by BIOS	PWM Hz specified in VBT
>> Asus T100TA 	200			200
>> Asus T100HA 	200			200
>> Lenovo Miix 2 8	23437			20000
>> Toshiba WT8-A	23437			20000
>>
>> So as we can see if we assume the extra division by 256 then the register
>> values set by the GOP are an exact match for the VBT values, where as
>> otherwise the values would be of by a factor of 256.
>>
>> This commit fixes the period / duty_cycle calculations to take the
>> extra division by 256 into account.
> 
> So, base clock is 6MHz, then 7 bit divisor. That's what original values
> were for. On top of that there is 8-bit duty cycle control ("divide by 256"
> whatever it means) with the output range 23.437kHz..183Hz.

Right, so that range matches with a clock div of 1*256 (6 MHz/256 = 23437.5KHz)
to 128*256 (6 MHz/(128*256) = 183.1Hz) IOW this patch is correct.

Before this patch the code assumed a clkdiv of 1-128 (*), which leads to a
very different output frequency range.

Regards,

Hans


*) 0-127 really, that is fixed in a followup patch



> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Use NSEC_PER_USEC instead of adding a new (non-sensical) NSEC_PER_MHZ define
>> ---
>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 6 +++---
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
>> index 272eeb071147..c056eb9b858c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
>> @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
>>   
>>   #define PWM_MAX_LEVEL		0xFF
>>   
>> -#define PWM_BASE_CLK		6000000  /* 6 MHz */
>> -#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	21333    /* 46.875KHz */
>> +#define PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ	6	/* 6 MHz */
>> +#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	5461333	/* 183 Hz */
>>   
>>   /**
>>    * struct crystalcove_pwm - Crystal Cove PWM controller
>> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>   
>>   		/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
>>   		crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm);
>> -		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK * period_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC;
>> +		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
>>   
>>   		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
>>   					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
>> -- 
>> 2.26.2
>>
> 

Re: [PATCH v5 07/16] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I
> noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and
> there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128,
> and there are 256 duty-cycle steps.
> 
> The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clock-divider
> setting of 1 means that the PWM output is running at 6 MHZ, if that
> is true, where do these 256 duty-cycle steps come from?
> 
> This would require an internal frequency of 256 * 6 MHz = 1.5 GHz, that
> seems unlikely for a PMIC which is using a silicon process optimized for
> power-switching transistors. It is way more likely that there is an 8
> bit counter for the duty cycle which acts as an extra fixed divider
> wrt the PWM output frequency.
> 
> The main user of the pwm-crc driver is the i915 GPU driver which uses it
> for backlight control. Lets compare the PWM register values set by the
> video-BIOS (the GOP), assuming the extra fixed divider is present versus
> the PWM frequency specified in the Video-BIOS-Tables:
> 
> Device:		PWM Hz set by BIOS	PWM Hz specified in VBT
> Asus T100TA 	200			200
> Asus T100HA 	200			200
> Lenovo Miix 2 8	23437			20000
> Toshiba WT8-A	23437			20000
> 
> So as we can see if we assume the extra division by 256 then the register
> values set by the GOP are an exact match for the VBT values, where as
> otherwise the values would be of by a factor of 256.
> 
> This commit fixes the period / duty_cycle calculations to take the
> extra division by 256 into account.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Use NSEC_PER_USEC instead of adding a new (non-sensical) NSEC_PER_MHZ define
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> index 272eeb071147..c056eb9b858c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
>  
>  #define PWM_MAX_LEVEL		0xFF
>  
> -#define PWM_BASE_CLK		6000000  /* 6 MHz */
> -#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	21333    /* 46.875KHz */
> +#define PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ	6	/* 6 MHz */
> +#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	5461333	/* 183 Hz */
>  
>  /**
>   * struct crystalcove_pwm - Crystal Cove PWM controller
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  
>  		/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
>  		crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm);
> -		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK * period_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC;
> +		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
>  
>  		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
>  					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[PATCH v5 08/16] pwm: crc: Fix off-by-one error in the clock-divider calculations

[Hans de Goede]

The CRC PWM controller has a clock-divider which divides the clock with
a value between 1-128. But as can seen from the PWM_DIV_CLK_xxx
defines, this range maps to a register value of 0-127.

So after calculating the clock-divider we must subtract 1 to get the
register value, unless the requested frequency was so high that the
calculation has already resulted in a (rounded) divider value of 0.

Note that before this fix, setting a period of PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS which
corresponds to the max. divider value of 128 could have resulted in a
bug where the code would use 128 as divider-register value which would
have resulted in an actual divider value of 0 (and the enable bit being
set). A rounding error stopped this bug from actually happen. This
same rounding error means that after the subtraction of 1 it is impossible
to set the divider to 128. Also bump PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS by 1 ns to allow
setting a divider of 128 (register-value 127).

Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- Introduce crc_pwm_calc_clk_div() here instead of later in the patch-set
  to reduce the amount of churn in the patch-set a bit
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
index c056eb9b858c..44ec7d5b63e1 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
 #define PWM_MAX_LEVEL		0xFF
 
 #define PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ	6	/* 6 MHz */
-#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	5461333	/* 183 Hz */
+#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	5461334	/* 183 Hz */
 
 /**
  * struct crystalcove_pwm - Crystal Cove PWM controller
@@ -39,6 +39,18 @@ static inline struct crystalcove_pwm *to_crc_pwm(struct pwm_chip *pc)
 	return container_of(pc, struct crystalcove_pwm, chip);
 }
 
+static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns)
+{
+	int clk_div;
+
+	clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
+	/* clk_div 1 - 128, maps to register values 0-127 */
+	if (clk_div > 0)
+		clk_div--;
+
+	return clk_div;
+}
+
 static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
 	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
@@ -68,11 +80,10 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	}
 
 	if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) {
-		int clk_div;
+		int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns);
 
 		/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
 		crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm);
-		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
 
 		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
 					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH v5 08/16] pwm: crc: Fix off-by-one error in the clock-divider calculations

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:45PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> The CRC PWM controller has a clock-divider which divides the clock with
> a value between 1-128. But as can seen from the PWM_DIV_CLK_xxx
> defines, this range maps to a register value of 0-127.
> 
> So after calculating the clock-divider we must subtract 1 to get the
> register value, unless the requested frequency was so high that the
> calculation has already resulted in a (rounded) divider value of 0.
> 
> Note that before this fix, setting a period of PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS which
> corresponds to the max. divider value of 128 could have resulted in a
> bug where the code would use 128 as divider-register value which would
> have resulted in an actual divider value of 0 (and the enable bit being
> set). A rounding error stopped this bug from actually happen. This
> same rounding error means that after the subtraction of 1 it is impossible
> to set the divider to 128. Also bump PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS by 1 ns to allow
> setting a divider of 128 (register-value 127).

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Introduce crc_pwm_calc_clk_div() here instead of later in the patch-set
>   to reduce the amount of churn in the patch-set a bit
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> index c056eb9b858c..44ec7d5b63e1 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
>  #define PWM_MAX_LEVEL		0xFF
>  
>  #define PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ	6	/* 6 MHz */
> -#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	5461333	/* 183 Hz */
> +#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	5461334	/* 183 Hz */
>  
>  /**
>   * struct crystalcove_pwm - Crystal Cove PWM controller
> @@ -39,6 +39,18 @@ static inline struct crystalcove_pwm *to_crc_pwm(struct pwm_chip *pc)
>  	return container_of(pc, struct crystalcove_pwm, chip);
>  }
>  
> +static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns)
> +{
> +	int clk_div;
> +
> +	clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
> +	/* clk_div 1 - 128, maps to register values 0-127 */
> +	if (clk_div > 0)
> +		clk_div--;
> +
> +	return clk_div;
> +}
> +
>  static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  {
>  	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
> @@ -68,11 +80,10 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  	}
>  
>  	if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) {
> -		int clk_div;
> +		int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns);
>  
>  		/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
>  		crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm);
> -		clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
>  
>  		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
>  					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[PATCH v5 09/16] pwm: crc: Fix period changes not having any effect

[Hans de Goede]

The pwm-crc code is using 2 different enable bits:
1. bit 7 of the PWM0_CLK_DIV (PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE)
2. bit 0 of the BACKLIGHT_EN register

I strongly suspect that the BACKLIGHT_EN register at address 0x51 really
controls a separate output-only GPIO which is connected to the LCD panels
backlight-enable input. Like how the PANEL_EN register at address 0x52
controls an output-only GPIO which is earmarked for the LCD panel's
enable pin. If this is correct then this GPIO should really be added to
the gpio-crystalcove.c driver and the PWM driver should stop poking it.
But I've been unable to come up with a definitive answer here, so I'm
keeping this as is for now.

As the comment in the old code already indicates we must disable the PWM
before we can change the clock divider. But the crc_pwm_disable() and
crc_pwm_enable() calls the old code make for this only change the
BACKLIGHT_EN register; and the value of that register does not matter for
changing the period / the divider. What does matter is that the
PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE bit must be cleared before a new value can be written.

This commit modifies crc_pwm_config() to clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE instead
when changing the period, so that period changes actually work.

Note this fix will cause a significant behavior change on some devices
using the CRC PWM output to drive their backlight. Before the PWM would
always run with the output frequency configured by the BIOS at boot, now
the period time specified by the i915 driver will actually be honored.

Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 7 ++-----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
index 44ec7d5b63e1..81232da0c767 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
@@ -82,14 +82,11 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) {
 		int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns);
 
-		/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
-		crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm);
+		/* changing the clk divisor, clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE first */
+		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0);
 
 		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
 					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
-
-		/* enable back */
-		crc_pwm_enable(c, pwm);
 	}
 
 	/* change the pwm duty cycle */
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH v5 09/16] pwm: crc: Fix period changes not having any effect

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> The pwm-crc code is using 2 different enable bits:
> 1. bit 7 of the PWM0_CLK_DIV (PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE)
> 2. bit 0 of the BACKLIGHT_EN register
> 
> I strongly suspect that the BACKLIGHT_EN register at address 0x51 really
> controls a separate output-only GPIO which is connected to the LCD panels
> backlight-enable input. Like how the PANEL_EN register at address 0x52
> controls an output-only GPIO which is earmarked for the LCD panel's
> enable pin. If this is correct then this GPIO should really be added to
> the gpio-crystalcove.c driver and the PWM driver should stop poking it.
> But I've been unable to come up with a definitive answer here, so I'm
> keeping this as is for now.
> 
> As the comment in the old code already indicates we must disable the PWM
> before we can change the clock divider. But the crc_pwm_disable() and
> crc_pwm_enable() calls the old code make for this only change the
> BACKLIGHT_EN register; and the value of that register does not matter for
> changing the period / the divider. What does matter is that the
> PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE bit must be cleared before a new value can be written.
> 
> This commit modifies crc_pwm_config() to clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE instead
> when changing the period, so that period changes actually work.
> 
> Note this fix will cause a significant behavior change on some devices
> using the CRC PWM output to drive their backlight. Before the PWM would
> always run with the output frequency configured by the BIOS at boot, now
> the period time specified by the i915 driver will actually be honored.

We have a confirmation now that those two bits are real GPOs.

So, with corrected commit message

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> index 44ec7d5b63e1..81232da0c767 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> @@ -82,14 +82,11 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  	if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) {
>  		int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns);
>  
> -		/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */
> -		crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm);
> +		/* changing the clk divisor, clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE first */
> +		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0);
>  
>  		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
>  					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
> -
> -		/* enable back */
> -		crc_pwm_enable(c, pwm);
>  	}
>  
>  	/* change the pwm duty cycle */
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[PATCH v5 10/16] pwm: crc: Enable/disable PWM output on enable/disable

[Hans de Goede]

The pwm-crc code is using 2 different enable bits:
1. bit 7 of the PWM0_CLK_DIV (PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE)
2. bit 0 of the BACKLIGHT_EN register

So far we've kept the PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE bit set when disabling the PWM,
this commit makes crc_pwm_disable() clear it on disable and makes
crc_pwm_enable() set it again on re-enable.

Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- Remove paragraph about tri-stating the output from the commit message,
  we don't have a datasheet so this was just an unfounded guess
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
index 81232da0c767..b72008c9b072 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
@@ -54,7 +54,9 @@ static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns)
 static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
 	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
+	int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
 
+	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
 	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1);
 
 	return 0;
@@ -63,8 +65,10 @@ static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 static void crc_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
 	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
+	int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
 
 	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0);
+	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div);
 }
 
 static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH v5 10/16] pwm: crc: Enable/disable PWM output on enable/disable

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> The pwm-crc code is using 2 different enable bits:
> 1. bit 7 of the PWM0_CLK_DIV (PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE)
> 2. bit 0 of the BACKLIGHT_EN register
> 
> So far we've kept the PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE bit set when disabling the PWM,
> this commit makes crc_pwm_disable() clear it on disable and makes
> crc_pwm_enable() set it again on re-enable.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Remove paragraph about tri-stating the output from the commit message,
>   we don't have a datasheet so this was just an unfounded guess
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> index 81232da0c767..b72008c9b072 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> @@ -54,7 +54,9 @@ static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns)
>  static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  {
>  	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
> +	int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
>  
> +	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
>  	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1);
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -63,8 +65,10 @@ static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  static void crc_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  {
>  	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
> +	int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
>  
>  	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0);
> +	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div);
>  }
>  
>  static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[PATCH v5 11/16] pwm: crc: Implement apply() method to support the new atomic PWM API

[Hans de Goede]

Replace the enable, disable and config pwm_ops with an apply op,
to support the new atomic PWM API.

Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- Keep crc_pwm_calc_clk_div() helper to avoid needless churn
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
index b72008c9b072..8a7f4707279c 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
@@ -51,59 +51,76 @@ static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns)
 	return clk_div;
 }
 
-static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
+static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+			 const struct pwm_state *state)
 {
-	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
-	int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
-
-	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
-	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1);
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static void crc_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
-{
-	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
-	int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
-
-	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0);
-	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div);
-}
-
-static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
-			  int duty_ns, int period_ns)
-{
-	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
+	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip);
 	struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev;
-	int level;
+	int err;
 
-	if (period_ns > PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS) {
+	if (state->period > PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS) {
 		dev_err(dev, "un-supported period_ns\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) {
-		int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns);
+	if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+	if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && !state->enabled) {
+		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0);
+		if (err) {
+			dev_err(dev, "Error writing BACKLIGHT_EN %d\n", err);
+			return err;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (pwm_get_duty_cycle(pwm) != state->duty_cycle ||
+	    pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) {
+		int level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / state->period;
 
+		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level);
+		if (err) {
+			dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", err);
+			return err;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && state->enabled &&
+	    pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) {
 		/* changing the clk divisor, clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE first */
-		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0);
+		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0);
+		if (err) {
+			dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", err);
+			return err;
+		}
+	}
 
-		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
-					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
+	if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period ||
+	    pwm_is_enabled(pwm) != state->enabled) {
+		int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(state->period);
+		int pwm_output_enable = state->enabled ? PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE : 0;
+
+		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
+				   clk_div | pwm_output_enable);
+		if (err) {
+			dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", err);
+			return err;
+		}
 	}
 
-	/* change the pwm duty cycle */
-	level = duty_ns * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / period_ns;
-	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level);
+	if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && state->enabled) {
+		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1);
+		if (err) {
+			dev_err(dev, "Error writing BACKLIGHT_EN %d\n", err);
+			return err;
+		}
+	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
 
 static const struct pwm_ops crc_pwm_ops = {
-	.config = crc_pwm_config,
-	.enable = crc_pwm_enable,
-	.disable = crc_pwm_disable,
+	.apply = crc_pwm_apply,
 };
 
 static int crystalcove_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH v5 11/16] pwm: crc: Implement apply() method to support the new atomic PWM API

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:48PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Replace the enable, disable and config pwm_ops with an apply op,
> to support the new atomic PWM API.

I didn't notice any visible issue, so
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

Perhaps you may consider reusing existing _enable() / _disable(), but I don't
see if there will be nice improvement (maybe if in on of the previous patches
you also add an error handling to them first).

> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Keep crc_pwm_calc_clk_div() helper to avoid needless churn
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> index b72008c9b072..8a7f4707279c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> @@ -51,59 +51,76 @@ static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns)
>  	return clk_div;
>  }
>  
> -static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +			 const struct pwm_state *state)
>  {
> -	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
> -	int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
> -
> -	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
> -	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1);
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static void crc_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> -{
> -	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
> -	int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
> -
> -	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0);
> -	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div);
> -}
> -
> -static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> -			  int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> -{
> -	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c);
> +	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip);
>  	struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev;
> -	int level;
> +	int err;
>  
> -	if (period_ns > PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS) {
> +	if (state->period > PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "un-supported period_ns\n");
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) {
> -		int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns);
> +	if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && !state->enabled) {
> +		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0);
> +		if (err) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "Error writing BACKLIGHT_EN %d\n", err);
> +			return err;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	if (pwm_get_duty_cycle(pwm) != state->duty_cycle ||
> +	    pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) {
> +		int level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / state->period;
>  
> +		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level);
> +		if (err) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", err);
> +			return err;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && state->enabled &&
> +	    pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) {
>  		/* changing the clk divisor, clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE first */
> -		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0);
> +		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0);
> +		if (err) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", err);
> +			return err;
> +		}
> +	}
>  
> -		regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
> -					clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
> +	if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period ||
> +	    pwm_is_enabled(pwm) != state->enabled) {
> +		int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(state->period);
> +		int pwm_output_enable = state->enabled ? PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE : 0;
> +
> +		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV,
> +				   clk_div | pwm_output_enable);
> +		if (err) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", err);
> +			return err;
> +		}
>  	}
>  
> -	/* change the pwm duty cycle */
> -	level = duty_ns * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / period_ns;
> -	regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level);
> +	if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && state->enabled) {
> +		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1);
> +		if (err) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "Error writing BACKLIGHT_EN %d\n", err);
> +			return err;
> +		}
> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static const struct pwm_ops crc_pwm_ops = {
> -	.config = crc_pwm_config,
> -	.enable = crc_pwm_enable,
> -	.disable = crc_pwm_disable,
> +	.apply = crc_pwm_apply,
>  };
>  
>  static int crystalcove_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[PATCH v5 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method

[Hans de Goede]

Implement the pwm_ops.get_state() method to complete the support for the
new atomic PWM API.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v5:
- Fix an indentation issue

Changes in v4:
- Use DIV_ROUND_UP when calculating the period and duty_cycle from the
  controller's register values

Changes in v3:
- Add Andy's Reviewed-by tag
- Remove extra whitespace to align some code after assignments (requested by
  Uwe Kleine-König)
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
index 8a7f4707279c..370ab826a20b 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
@@ -119,8 +119,39 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+			      struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+	struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip);
+	struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev;
+	unsigned int clk_div, clk_div_reg, duty_cycle_reg;
+	int error;
+
+	error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, &clk_div_reg);
+	if (error) {
+		dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", error);
+		return;
+	}
+
+	error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, &duty_cycle_reg);
+	if (error) {
+		dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", error);
+		return;
+	}
+
+	clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1;
+
+	state->period =
+		DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ);
+	state->duty_cycle =
+		DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_cycle_reg * state->period, PWM_MAX_LEVEL);
+	state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
+	state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
+}
+
 static const struct pwm_ops crc_pwm_ops = {
 	.apply = crc_pwm_apply,
+	.get_state = crc_pwm_get_state,
 };
 
 static int crystalcove_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH v5 13/16] drm/i915: panel: Add get_vbt_pwm_freq() helper

[Hans de Goede]

Factor the code which checks and drm_dbg_kms-s the VBT PWM frequency
out of get_backlight_max_vbt().

This is a preparation patch for honering the VBT PWM frequency for
devices which use an external PWM controller (devices using
pwm_setup_backlight()).

Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 27 ++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
index 3c5056dbf607..8efdd9f08a08 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
@@ -1543,18 +1543,9 @@ static u32 vlv_hz_to_pwm(struct intel_connector *connector, u32 pwm_freq_hz)
 	return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(clock, pwm_freq_hz * mul);
 }
 
-static u32 get_backlight_max_vbt(struct intel_connector *connector)
+static u16 get_vbt_pwm_freq(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 {
-	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(connector->base.dev);
-	struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel;
 	u16 pwm_freq_hz = dev_priv->vbt.backlight.pwm_freq_hz;
-	u32 pwm;
-
-	if (!panel->backlight.hz_to_pwm) {
-		drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
-			    "backlight frequency conversion not supported\n");
-		return 0;
-	}
 
 	if (pwm_freq_hz) {
 		drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
@@ -1567,6 +1558,22 @@ static u32 get_backlight_max_vbt(struct intel_connector *connector)
 			    pwm_freq_hz);
 	}
 
+	return pwm_freq_hz;
+}
+
+static u32 get_backlight_max_vbt(struct intel_connector *connector)
+{
+	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(connector->base.dev);
+	struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel;
+	u16 pwm_freq_hz = get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv);
+	u32 pwm;
+
+	if (!panel->backlight.hz_to_pwm) {
+		drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
+			    "backlight frequency conversion not supported\n");
+		return 0;
+	}
+
 	pwm = panel->backlight.hz_to_pwm(connector, pwm_freq_hz);
 	if (!pwm) {
 		drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH v5 14/16] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller

[Hans de Goede]

So far for devices using an external PWM controller (devices using
pwm_setup_backlight()), we have been hardcoding the period-time passed to
pwm_config() to 21333 ns.

I suspect this was done because many VBTs set the PWM frequency to 200
which corresponds to a period-time of 5000000 ns, which greatly exceeds
the PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS define in the Crystal Cove PMIC PWM driver, which
used to be 21333.

This PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS define was actually based on a bug in the PWM
driver where its period and duty-cycle times where off by a factor of 256.

Due to this bug the hardcoded CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS value of 21333 would
result in the PWM driver using its divider of 128, which would result in
a PWM output frequency of 6000000 Hz / 256 / 128 = 183 Hz. So actually
pretty close to the default VBT value of 200 Hz.

Now that this bug in the pwm-crc driver is fixed, we can actually use
the VBT defined frequency.

This is important because:

a) With the pwm-crc driver fixed it will now translate the hardcoded
CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS value of 21333 ns / 46 Khz to a PWM output
frequency of 23 KHz (the max it can do).

b) The pwm-lpss driver used on many models has always honored the
21333 ns / 46 Khz request

Some panels do not like such high output frequencies. E.g. on a Terra
Pad 1061 tablet, using the LPSS PWM controller, the backlight would go
from off to max, when changing the sysfs backlight brightness value from
90-100%, anything under aprox. 90% would turn the backlight fully off.

Honoring the VBT specified PWM frequency will also hopefully fix the
various bug reports which we have received about users perceiving the
backlight to flicker after a suspend/resume cycle.

Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h    |  1 +
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c    | 19 +++++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
index 2bf3d4cb4ea9..de32f9efb120 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
@@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ struct intel_panel {
 		bool util_pin_active_low;	/* bxt+ */
 		u8 controller;		/* bxt+ only */
 		struct pwm_device *pwm;
+		int pwm_period_ns;
 
 		/* DPCD backlight */
 		u8 pwmgen_bit_count;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
index 8efdd9f08a08..14e611c92194 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
@@ -40,8 +40,6 @@
 #include "intel_dsi_dcs_backlight.h"
 #include "intel_panel.h"
 
-#define CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS	21333
-
 void
 intel_fixed_panel_mode(const struct drm_display_mode *fixed_mode,
 		       struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode)
@@ -597,7 +595,7 @@ static u32 pwm_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector)
 	int duty_ns;
 
 	duty_ns = pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm);
-	return DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_ns * 100, CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
+	return DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_ns * 100, panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
 }
 
 static void lpt_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 level)
@@ -671,9 +669,10 @@ static void bxt_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32
 static void pwm_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 level)
 {
 	struct intel_panel *panel = &to_intel_connector(conn_state->connector)->panel;
-	int duty_ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS, 100);
+	int duty_ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
 
-	pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, duty_ns, CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
+	pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, duty_ns,
+		   panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
 }
 
 static void
@@ -1917,6 +1916,9 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
 		return -ENODEV;
 	}
 
+	panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns = NSEC_PER_SEC /
+					 get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv);
+
 	/*
 	 * FIXME: pwm_apply_args() should be removed when switching to
 	 * the atomic PWM API.
@@ -1926,9 +1928,10 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
 	panel->backlight.min = 0; /* 0% */
 	panel->backlight.max = 100; /* 100% */
 	level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, 100);
-	ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS, 100);
+	ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
 
-	retval = pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, ns, CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
+	retval = pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, ns,
+			    panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
 	if (retval < 0) {
 		drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "Failed to configure the pwm chip\n");
 		pwm_put(panel->backlight.pwm);
@@ -1937,7 +1940,7 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
 	}
 
 	level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
-			     CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
+			     panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
 	panel->backlight.level =
 		intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level);
 	panel->backlight.enabled = panel->backlight.level != 0;
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH v5 15/16] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM min setting for devs with an external PWM controller

[Hans de Goede]

So far for devices using an external PWM controller (devices using
pwm_setup_backlight()), we have been hardcoding the minimum allowed
PWM level to 0. But several of these devices specify a non 0 minimum
setting in their VBT.

Change pwm_setup_backlight() to use get_backlight_min_vbt() to get
the minimum level.

Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
index 14e611c92194..cb28b9908ca4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
@@ -1925,8 +1925,8 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
 	 */
 	pwm_apply_args(panel->backlight.pwm);
 
-	panel->backlight.min = 0; /* 0% */
 	panel->backlight.max = 100; /* 100% */
+	panel->backlight.min = get_backlight_min_vbt(connector);
 	level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, 100);
 	ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
 
@@ -1941,8 +1941,9 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
 
 	level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
 			     panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
-	panel->backlight.level =
-		intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level);
+	level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level);
+	panel->backlight.level = clamp(level, panel->backlight.min,
+				       panel->backlight.max);
 	panel->backlight.enabled = panel->backlight.level != 0;
 
 	drm_info(&dev_priv->drm, "Using %s PWM for LCD backlight control\n",
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH v5 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller

[Hans de Goede]

Now that the PWM drivers which we use have been converted to the atomic
PWM API, we can move the i915 panel code over to using the atomic PWM API.

The removes a long standing FIXME and this removes a flicker where
the backlight brightness would jump to 100% when i915 loads even if
using the fastset path.

Note that this commit also simplifies pwm_disable_backlight(), by dropping
the intel_panel_actually_set_backlight(..., 0) call. This call sets the
PWM to 0% duty-cycle. I believe that this call was only present as a
workaround for a bug in the pwm-crc.c driver where it failed to clear the
PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE bit. This is fixed by an earlier patch in this series.

After the dropping of this workaround, the usleep call, which seems
unnecessary to begin with, has no useful effect anymore, so drop that too.

Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
Changes in v4:
- Add a note to the commit message about the dropping of the
  intel_panel_actually_set_backlight() and usleep() calls from
  pwm_disable_backlight()
- Use the pwm_set/get_relative_duty_cycle() helpers instead of using DIY code
  for this
---
 .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h    |  3 +-
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c    | 71 +++++++++----------
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
index de32f9efb120..4bd9981e70a1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/async.h>
 #include <linux/i2c.h>
+#include <linux/pwm.h>
 #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
 
 #include <drm/drm_atomic.h>
@@ -223,7 +224,7 @@ struct intel_panel {
 		bool util_pin_active_low;	/* bxt+ */
 		u8 controller;		/* bxt+ only */
 		struct pwm_device *pwm;
-		int pwm_period_ns;
+		struct pwm_state pwm_state;
 
 		/* DPCD backlight */
 		u8 pwmgen_bit_count;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
index cb28b9908ca4..3d97267c8238 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
@@ -592,10 +592,10 @@ static u32 bxt_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector)
 static u32 pwm_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector)
 {
 	struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel;
-	int duty_ns;
+	struct pwm_state state;
 
-	duty_ns = pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm);
-	return DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_ns * 100, panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
+	pwm_get_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &state);
+	return pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&state, 100);
 }
 
 static void lpt_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 level)
@@ -669,10 +669,9 @@ static void bxt_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32
 static void pwm_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 level)
 {
 	struct intel_panel *panel = &to_intel_connector(conn_state->connector)->panel;
-	int duty_ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
 
-	pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, duty_ns,
-		   panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
+	pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&panel->backlight.pwm_state, level, 100);
+	pwm_apply_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &panel->backlight.pwm_state);
 }
 
 static void
@@ -841,10 +840,8 @@ static void pwm_disable_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *old_conn_sta
 	struct intel_connector *connector = to_intel_connector(old_conn_state->connector);
 	struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel;
 
-	/* Disable the backlight */
-	intel_panel_actually_set_backlight(old_conn_state, 0);
-	usleep_range(2000, 3000);
-	pwm_disable(panel->backlight.pwm);
+	panel->backlight.pwm_state.enabled = false;
+	pwm_apply_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &panel->backlight.pwm_state);
 }
 
 void intel_panel_disable_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *old_conn_state)
@@ -1176,9 +1173,12 @@ static void pwm_enable_backlight(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
 {
 	struct intel_connector *connector = to_intel_connector(conn_state->connector);
 	struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel;
+	int level = panel->backlight.level;
 
-	pwm_enable(panel->backlight.pwm);
-	intel_panel_actually_set_backlight(conn_state, panel->backlight.level);
+	level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level);
+	pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&panel->backlight.pwm_state, level, 100);
+	panel->backlight.pwm_state.enabled = true;
+	pwm_apply_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &panel->backlight.pwm_state);
 }
 
 static void __intel_panel_enable_backlight(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
@@ -1897,8 +1897,7 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
 	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
 	struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel;
 	const char *desc;
-	u32 level, ns;
-	int retval;
+	u32 level;
 
 	/* Get the right PWM chip for DSI backlight according to VBT */
 	if (dev_priv->vbt.dsi.config->pwm_blc == PPS_BLC_PMIC) {
@@ -1916,36 +1915,30 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
 		return -ENODEV;
 	}
 
-	panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns = NSEC_PER_SEC /
-					 get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv);
-
-	/*
-	 * FIXME: pwm_apply_args() should be removed when switching to
-	 * the atomic PWM API.
-	 */
-	pwm_apply_args(panel->backlight.pwm);
-
 	panel->backlight.max = 100; /* 100% */
 	panel->backlight.min = get_backlight_min_vbt(connector);
-	level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, 100);
-	ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
 
-	retval = pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, ns,
-			    panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
-	if (retval < 0) {
-		drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "Failed to configure the pwm chip\n");
-		pwm_put(panel->backlight.pwm);
-		panel->backlight.pwm = NULL;
-		return retval;
+	if (pwm_is_enabled(panel->backlight.pwm) &&
+	    pwm_get_period(panel->backlight.pwm)) {
+		/* PWM is already enabled, use existing settings */
+		pwm_get_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &panel->backlight.pwm_state);
+
+		level = pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&panel->backlight.pwm_state,
+						    100);
+		level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level);
+		panel->backlight.level = clamp(level, panel->backlight.min,
+					       panel->backlight.max);
+		panel->backlight.enabled = true;
+
+		drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, "PWM already enabled at freq %ld, VBT freq %d, level %d\n",
+			    NSEC_PER_SEC / panel->backlight.pwm_state.period,
+			    get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv), level);
+	} else {
+		/* Set period from VBT frequency, leave other settings at 0. */
+		panel->backlight.pwm_state.period =
+			NSEC_PER_SEC / get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv);
 	}
 
-	level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
-			     panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns);
-	level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level);
-	panel->backlight.level = clamp(level, panel->backlight.min,
-				       panel->backlight.max);
-	panel->backlight.enabled = panel->backlight.level != 0;
-
 	drm_info(&dev_priv->drm, "Using %s PWM for LCD backlight control\n",
 		 desc);
 	return 0;
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH v5 00/16] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4881 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Here is v5 of my patch series converting the i915 driver's code for
> controlling the panel's backlight with an external PWM controller to
> use the atomic PWM API. See below for the changelog.
> 
> This series consists of 4 parts:
> 
> 1. acpi_lpss fixes workarounds for Cherry Trail DSTD nastiness
> 2. various fixes to the pwm-lpss driver
> 3. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and
> 4. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API
> 
> The involved acpi_lpss and pwm drivers do not see a whole lot of churn,
> so the plan is to merge this all through drm-intel-next-queued (dinq)
> once all the patches are reviewed / have acks.
> 
> Specifically patches 5-9, 11 still need an Acked- / Reviewed-by
> 
> Andy, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Specifically
> patches 5-6 should address your review remarks from v4 of this set
> and I've addressed your review remarks on patches 7-9 in v3 already.
> A review of patch 11 would also be welcome
> 
> Uwe, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches?
> 
> Uwe, may I have your Acked-by for merging this series through the
> drm-intel-next-queued branch once all PWM patches have an Acked- or
> Reviewed-by ?
> 
> This series has been tested (and re-tested after adding various bug-fixes)
> extensively. It has been tested on the following devices:
> 
> -Asus T100TA  BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> -Toshiba WT8-A  BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> -Thundersoft TS178 BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM, inverse PWM
> -Asus T100HA  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> -Terra Pad 1061  BYT + LPSS PWM
> -Trekstor Twin 10.1 BYT + LPSS PWM
> -Asus T101HA  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> -GPD Pocket  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> 
> Changelog:
> Changes in v5:
> - Dropped the "pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0"
>   patch. The base_unit == 0 condition should never happen and sofar it is
>   unclear what the proper behavior / correct values to store in the
>   pwm_state should be when this does happen.  Since this patch was added as
>   an extra pwm-lpss fix in v4 of this patch-set and otherwise is orthogonal
>   to the of this patch-set just drop it (again).
> - "[PATCH 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value"
>   - Use clamp_val(... instead of clam_t(unsigned long long, ...
> - "[PATCH 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper"
>   - This is a new patch in v5 of this patchset
> - [PATCH 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
>   - Use the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper
> 
> Changes in v4:
> - "[PATCH v4 06/16] pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0"
>   - This is a new patch in v4 of this patchset
> - "[PATCH v4 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method"
>   - Use DIV_ROUND_UP when calculating the period and duty_cycle values
> - "[PATCH v4 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller"
>   - Add a note to the commit message about the changes in pwm_disable_backlight()
>   - Use the pwm_set/get_relative_duty_cycle() helpers
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - "[PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value"
>   - Use base_unit_range - 1 as maximum value for the clamp()
> - "[PATCH v3 05/15] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume"
>   - 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.
> - PATCH v3 6 - 11 pwm-crc changes:
>   - Various small changes resulting from the reviews by Andy and Uwe,
>     including some refactoring of the patches to reduce the amount of churn
>     in the patch-set
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix coverletter subject
> - Drop accidentally included debugging patch
> - "[PATCH v3 02/15] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (
>   - Move #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE define to group it with LPSS_SAVE_CTX

Hi Hans,

I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a
bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there
were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're
doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain.

That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for
patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as
well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all
independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding
subsystem trees.

Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose
that's something I can do as well.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v5 00/16] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:41:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a
> bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there
> were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're
> doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain.

Can we postpone a bit?

> That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for
> patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as
> well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all
> independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding
> subsystem trees.
> 
> Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose
> that's something I can do as well.



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [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]

cHi,

On 7/29/20 10:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:41:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
>> I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a
>> bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there
>> were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're
>> doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain.

Thank you for picking up these patches, but ...

> Can we postpone a bit?

I have to agree with Andy here, as mentioned my plan was to push the
entire series through drm-intel-next-queued once the last few PWM
patches are reviewed.

There are some fixes, to the pwm-crc driver which change behavior in
a possibly undesirable way, unless combined with the i915 changes.

E.g. there is a fix which makes the pwm-crc driver actually honor
the requested output frequency (it was not doing this due to a bug)
and before the i915 changes, the i915 driver was hardcoding an output
freq, rather then looking at the video-bios-tables as it should.

So having just the pwm-crc fix, will change the output frequency
which some LCD panels might not like.

Note things are probably fine with the hardcoded output freq, but I
would like to play it safe here.

Also Andy was still reviewing some of the PWM patches, and has requested
changes to 1 patch, nothing functional just some code-reshuffling for
cleaner code, so we could alternatively fix this up with a follow-up patch.

Either way please let us know how you want to proceed.

>> That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for
>> patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as
>> well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all
>> independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding
>> subsystem trees.
>>
>> Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose
>> that's something I can do as well.

drm-intel-next-queued is usually seeing quite a bit of churn, so the i915
patches really should go upstream through that branch.

Regards,

Hans

Re: [PATCH v5 00/16] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4378 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:32:28AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> cHi,
> 
> On 7/29/20 10:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:41:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > 
> > > I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a
> > > bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there
> > > were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're
> > > doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain.
> 
> Thank you for picking up these patches, but ...
> 
> > Can we postpone a bit?
> 
> I have to agree with Andy here, as mentioned my plan was to push the
> entire series through drm-intel-next-queued once the last few PWM
> patches are reviewed.
> 
> There are some fixes, to the pwm-crc driver which change behavior in
> a possibly undesirable way, unless combined with the i915 changes.
> 
> E.g. there is a fix which makes the pwm-crc driver actually honor
> the requested output frequency (it was not doing this due to a bug)
> and before the i915 changes, the i915 driver was hardcoding an output
> freq, rather then looking at the video-bios-tables as it should.
> 
> So having just the pwm-crc fix, will change the output frequency
> which some LCD panels might not like.
> 
> Note things are probably fine with the hardcoded output freq, but I
> would like to play it safe here.
> 
> Also Andy was still reviewing some of the PWM patches, and has requested
> changes to 1 patch, nothing functional just some code-reshuffling for
> cleaner code, so we could alternatively fix this up with a follow-up patch.
> 
> Either way please let us know how you want to proceed.

Okay, that's fine, I'll drop them again.

> > > That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for
> > > patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as
> > > well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all
> > > independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding
> > > subsystem trees.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose
> > > that's something I can do as well.
> 
> drm-intel-next-queued is usually seeing quite a bit of churn, so the i915
> patches really should go upstream through that branch.

During my build tests I ran into a small issue caused by this series
interacting with the conversion of period and duty-cycle to u64 that
I've queued for v5.9. This causes a build failure on x86.

I have this local diff to fix that:

--- >8 ---
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
index 370ab826a20b..92e838797733 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
@@ -76,7 +76,9 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 
 	if (pwm_get_duty_cycle(pwm) != state->duty_cycle ||
 	    pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) {
-		int level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / state->period;
+		u64 level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL;
+
+		do_div(level, state->period);
 
 		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level);
 		if (err) {
@@ -141,10 +143,9 @@ static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 
 	clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1;
 
-	state->period =
-		DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ);
-	state->duty_cycle =
-		DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_cycle_reg * state->period, PWM_MAX_LEVEL);
+	state->period = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ);
+	state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period + PWM_MAX_LEVEL - 1;
+	do_div(state->duty_cycle, PWM_MAX_LEVEL);
 	state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
 	state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
 }
--- >8 ---

So perhaps you want to integrate that or something equivalent into your
series.

Also this could result in a tricky dependency between PWM and drm-misc,
although if you're targetting drm-misc it's too late for v5.9 anyway. In
that case you should be able to rebase your series on v5.9-rc1 when it's
out and then you'll get the prerequisite PWM changes for the u64
conversion as part of that. No need to track the dependency explicitly.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [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]

Hi Thierry,

On 7/30/20 11:26 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:32:28AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> cHi,
>>
>> On 7/29/20 10:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:41:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a
>>>> bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there
>>>> were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're
>>>> doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain.
>>
>> Thank you for picking up these patches, but ...
>>
>>> Can we postpone a bit?
>>
>> I have to agree with Andy here, as mentioned my plan was to push the
>> entire series through drm-intel-next-queued once the last few PWM
>> patches are reviewed.
>>
>> There are some fixes, to the pwm-crc driver which change behavior in
>> a possibly undesirable way, unless combined with the i915 changes.
>>
>> E.g. there is a fix which makes the pwm-crc driver actually honor
>> the requested output frequency (it was not doing this due to a bug)
>> and before the i915 changes, the i915 driver was hardcoding an output
>> freq, rather then looking at the video-bios-tables as it should.
>>
>> So having just the pwm-crc fix, will change the output frequency
>> which some LCD panels might not like.
>>
>> Note things are probably fine with the hardcoded output freq, but I
>> would like to play it safe here.
>>
>> Also Andy was still reviewing some of the PWM patches, and has requested
>> changes to 1 patch, nothing functional just some code-reshuffling for
>> cleaner code, so we could alternatively fix this up with a follow-up patch.
>>
>> Either way please let us know how you want to proceed.
> 
> Okay, that's fine, I'll drop them again.

Great, thank you.

>>>> That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for
>>>> patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as
>>>> well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all
>>>> independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding
>>>> subsystem trees.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose
>>>> that's something I can do as well.
>>
>> drm-intel-next-queued is usually seeing quite a bit of churn, so the i915
>> patches really should go upstream through that branch.
> 
> During my build tests I ran into a small issue caused by this series
> interacting with the conversion of period and duty-cycle to u64 that
> I've queued for v5.9. This causes a build failure on x86.
> 
> I have this local diff to fix that:
> 
> --- >8 ---
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> index 370ab826a20b..92e838797733 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
> @@ -76,7 +76,9 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>   
>   	if (pwm_get_duty_cycle(pwm) != state->duty_cycle ||
>   	    pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) {
> -		int level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / state->period;
> +		u64 level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL;
> +
> +		do_div(level, state->period);
>   
>   		err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level);
>   		if (err) {
> @@ -141,10 +143,9 @@ static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>   
>   	clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1;
>   
> -	state->period =
> -		DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ);
> -	state->duty_cycle =
> -		DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_cycle_reg * state->period, PWM_MAX_LEVEL);
> +	state->period = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ);
> +	state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period + PWM_MAX_LEVEL - 1;
> +	do_div(state->duty_cycle, PWM_MAX_LEVEL);
>   	state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
>   	state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
>   }
> --- >8 ---
> 
> So perhaps you want to integrate that or something equivalent into your
> series.

Ack, thank you for letting me know.

> Also this could result in a tricky dependency between PWM and drm-misc,
> although if you're targetting drm-misc it's too late for v5.9 anyway. In
> that case you should be able to rebase your series on v5.9-rc1 when it's
> out and then you'll get the prerequisite PWM changes for the u64
> conversion as part of that. No need to track the dependency explicitly.

Right, I agree that this is too late for this cycle, so I will rebase it
on top of v5.9-rc1 once that is out, making sure to take the u64 changes
into account.

As said my plan is to merge this all through the drm tree, the assumption
there was that the pwm-crc and pwm-lpss drivers normally do not see a whole
lot of chsnges. Rebasing on top of 5.9-rc1 should take care of the u64
changes. So unless there are more pwm-core changes planned for the 5.10
cycle, I would like to queue this in the drm-intel tree for 5.10.
By thta time Andy and I should have also wrapped up the review process
(it is as good as wrapped up now already).

Thierry, is merging these through the drm-intel tree for 5.10 ok with
you? And if this is ok with you may I add your Acked-by to the PWM
patches to indicate this ?

Regards,

Hans

Re: [PATCH v5 00/16] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Here is v5 of my patch series converting the i915 driver's code for
> controlling the panel's backlight with an external PWM controller to
> use the atomic PWM API. See below for the changelog.
> 
> This series consists of 4 parts:
> 
> 1. acpi_lpss fixes workarounds for Cherry Trail DSTD nastiness
> 2. various fixes to the pwm-lpss driver
> 3. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and
> 4. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API
> 
> The involved acpi_lpss and pwm drivers do not see a whole lot of churn,
> so the plan is to merge this all through drm-intel-next-queued (dinq)
> once all the patches are reviewed / have acks.
> 
> Specifically patches 5-9, 11 still need an Acked- / Reviewed-by
> 
> Andy, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Specifically
> patches 5-6 should address your review remarks from v4 of this set
> and I've addressed your review remarks on patches 7-9 in v3 already.
> A review of patch 11 would also be welcome

Done. Sorry for a delay.

One comment to consider, though. There are three channels in that PWM AFAIU.
One of them is backlight control, another one can be attached to haptics. The
concern is how this series may (or may not?) affect haptics behaviour.

> Uwe, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches?
> 
> Uwe, may I have your Acked-by for merging this series through the
> drm-intel-next-queued branch once all PWM patches have an Acked- or
> Reviewed-by ?
> 
> This series has been tested (and re-tested after adding various bug-fixes)
> extensively. It has been tested on the following devices:
> 
> -Asus T100TA  BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> -Toshiba WT8-A  BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> -Thundersoft TS178 BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM, inverse PWM
> -Asus T100HA  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> -Terra Pad 1061  BYT + LPSS PWM
> -Trekstor Twin 10.1 BYT + LPSS PWM
> -Asus T101HA  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> -GPD Pocket  CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM
> 
> Changelog:
> Changes in v5:
> - Dropped the "pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0"
>   patch. The base_unit == 0 condition should never happen and sofar it is
>   unclear what the proper behavior / correct values to store in the
>   pwm_state should be when this does happen.  Since this patch was added as
>   an extra pwm-lpss fix in v4 of this patch-set and otherwise is orthogonal
>   to the of this patch-set just drop it (again).
> - "[PATCH 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value"
>   - Use clamp_val(... instead of clam_t(unsigned long long, ...
> - "[PATCH 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper"
>   - This is a new patch in v5 of this patchset
> - [PATCH 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
>   - Use the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper
> 
> Changes in v4:
> - "[PATCH v4 06/16] pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0"
>   - This is a new patch in v4 of this patchset
> - "[PATCH v4 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method"
>   - Use DIV_ROUND_UP when calculating the period and duty_cycle values
> - "[PATCH v4 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller"
>   - Add a note to the commit message about the changes in pwm_disable_backlight()
>   - Use the pwm_set/get_relative_duty_cycle() helpers
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - "[PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value"
>   - Use base_unit_range - 1 as maximum value for the clamp()
> - "[PATCH v3 05/15] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume"
>   - 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.
> - PATCH v3 6 - 11 pwm-crc changes:
>   - Various small changes resulting from the reviews by Andy and Uwe,
>     including some refactoring of the patches to reduce the amount of churn
>     in the patch-set
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix coverletter subject
> - Drop accidentally included debugging patch
> - "[PATCH v3 02/15] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (
>   - Move #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE define to group it with LPSS_SAVE_CTX
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [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]

Hi,

On 7/29/20 12:54 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here is v5 of my patch series converting the i915 driver's code for
>> controlling the panel's backlight with an external PWM controller to
>> use the atomic PWM API. See below for the changelog.
>>
>> This series consists of 4 parts:
>>
>> 1. acpi_lpss fixes workarounds for Cherry Trail DSTD nastiness
>> 2. various fixes to the pwm-lpss driver
>> 3. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and
>> 4. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API
>>
>> The involved acpi_lpss and pwm drivers do not see a whole lot of churn,
>> so the plan is to merge this all through drm-intel-next-queued (dinq)
>> once all the patches are reviewed / have acks.
>>
>> Specifically patches 5-9, 11 still need an Acked- / Reviewed-by
>>
>> Andy, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Specifically
>> patches 5-6 should address your review remarks from v4 of this set
>> and I've addressed your review remarks on patches 7-9 in v3 already.
>> A review of patch 11 would also be welcome
> 
> Done. Sorry for a delay.
> 
> One comment to consider, though. There are three channels in that PWM AFAIU.
> One of them is backlight control, another one can be attached to haptics. The
> concern is how this series may (or may not?) affect haptics behaviour.

When you say "in that PWM" do you mean the LPSS one or the CRC one ?

The LPSS patches are all fixes, they don't change behavior, so those
should be fine for the haptics.

The CRC PWM driver patches do make it honor the requested output frequency,
where before, because of a bug, it would stick with the out frequency
setup by the firmware (or the power-on-reset value if no value is set
by the firmware). This fix causing this is very clearly correct, but
it could have unexpected side-effects.

However I guess that you are talking about the LPSS PWM controllers
and there I expect no impact on haptic or other non backlight users
from these changes.

Regards,

Hans

Re: [PATCH v5 00/16] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 7/29/20 12:54 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

...

> > One comment to consider, though. There are three channels in that PWM AFAIU.
> > One of them is backlight control, another one can be attached to haptics. The
> > concern is how this series may (or may not?) affect haptics behaviour.
> 
> When you say "in that PWM" do you mean the LPSS one or the CRC one ?

CRC one. I have read it from PMIC spec, that's why the question.

> The CRC PWM driver patches do make it honor the requested output frequency,
> where before, because of a bug, it would stick with the out frequency
> setup by the firmware (or the power-on-reset value if no value is set
> by the firmware). This fix causing this is very clearly correct, but
> it could have unexpected side-effects.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [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]

Hi,

On 8/2/20 1:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 7/29/20 12:54 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> One comment to consider, though. There are three channels in that PWM AFAIU.
>>> One of them is backlight control, another one can be attached to haptics. The
>>> concern is how this series may (or may not?) affect haptics behaviour.
>>
>> When you say "in that PWM" do you mean the LPSS one or the CRC one ?
> 
> CRC one. I have read it from PMIC spec, that's why the question.

Ah I see, well the kernel driver only implements support for 1 PWM output,
the one which is used for the backlight brighness control.

So this series should not affect haptics behavior, since it looks like
the haptic functionality is not supported in the mainline kernel at all.

And I'm also not aware of any tablets with a CRC PMIC which have
(non working) haptic support.

Regards,

Hans