Re: [PATCH v8 06/17] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_restore() when restoring state on resume

From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/17] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_restore() when restoring state on resume
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:10:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200831111006.GD1688464@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200830125753.230420-7-hdegoede@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2895 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 02:57:42PM +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.

Doesn't this imply that there's another bug at play here? At the PWM API
level you're applying a state and it's up to the driver to ensure that
the hardware state after ->apply() is what the software has requested.

If you only switch the enable state and that doesn't cause period and
duty cycle to be updated it means that your driver isn't writing those
registers when it should be.

> 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 adds a new pwm_lpss_restore() helper which mirrors
> pwm_lpss_apply() minus the runtime-pm reference handling (which we should
> not change on resume).

If this is all already implemented in pwm_lpss_apply(), why isn't it
working for the suspend/resume case? It shouldn't matter that the
consumer only changes the enable/disable state. After ->apply()
successfully returns your hardware should be programmed with exactly
the state that the consumer requested.

Thierry

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