Hello,

(hhm Thierry already announced to have taken this patch, so my review is
late.)

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:23:37PM +0800, Rahul Tanwar wrote:
> Intel Lightning Mountain(LGM) SoC contains a PWM fan controller.
> This PWM controller does not have any other consumer, it is a
> dedicated PWM controller for fan attached to the system. Add
> driver for this PWM fan controller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/Kconfig         |  11 ++
>  drivers/pwm/Makefile        |   1 +
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c | 246 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 258 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> index 7dbcf6973d33..4949c51fe90b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> @@ -232,6 +232,17 @@ config PWM_IMX_TPM
>  	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>  	  will be called pwm-imx-tpm.
>  
> +config PWM_INTEL_LGM
> +	tristate "Intel LGM PWM support"
> +	depends on HAS_IOMEM
> +	depends on (OF && X86) || COMPILE_TEST
> +	select REGMAP_MMIO
> +	help
> +	  Generic PWM fan controller driver for LGM SoC.
> +
> +	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> +	  will be called pwm-intel-lgm.
> +
>  config PWM_IQS620A
>  	tristate "Azoteq IQS620A PWM support"
>  	depends on MFD_IQS62X || COMPILE_TEST
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> index 2c2ba0a03557..e9431b151694 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMG)		+= pwm-img.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX1)		+= pwm-imx1.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX27)		+= pwm-imx27.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX_TPM)	+= pwm-imx-tpm.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_INTEL_LGM)	+= pwm-intel-lgm.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IQS620A)	+= pwm-iqs620a.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_JZ4740)	+= pwm-jz4740.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LP3943)	+= pwm-lp3943.o
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..ea3df75a5971
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,246 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2020 Intel Corporation.
> + *
> + * Limitations:
> + * - The hardware supports fixed period which is dependent on 2/3 or 4
> + *   wire fan mode.

The driver now hardcodes 2-wire mode. IMHO that is worth mentioning.

> +static void lgm_clk_disable(void *data)
> +{
> +	struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc = data;
> +
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(pc->clk);
> +}
> +
> +static int lgm_clk_enable(struct device *dev, struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, lgm_clk_disable, pc);
> +}

My first reflex here was to point out that lgm_clk_disable() isn't the
counter part to lgm_clk_enable() and so lgm_clk_disable() needs
adaption. On a second look this is correct and so I think the function
names are wrong. The usual naming would be to use _release instead of
_disable. Having said that the enable function could be named
devm_clk_enable and live in drivers/clk/clk-devres.c. (Or
devm_clk_get_enabled()?)

> +static void lgm_reset_control_assert(void *data)
> +{
> +	struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc = data;
> +
> +	reset_control_assert(pc->rst);
> +}
> +
> +static int lgm_reset_control_deassert(struct device *dev, struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = reset_control_deassert(pc->rst);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, lgm_reset_control_assert, pc);
> +}

A similar comment applies here.

> +static int lgm_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc;
> +	void __iomem *io_base;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	pc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!pc)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
> +
> +	io_base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> +	if (IS_ERR(io_base))
> +		return PTR_ERR(io_base);
> +
> +	pc->regmap = devm_regmap_init_mmio(dev, io_base, &lgm_pwm_regmap_config);
> +	if (IS_ERR(pc->regmap))
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pc->regmap),
> +				     "failed to init register map\n");
> +
> +	pc->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(pc->clk))
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pc->clk), "failed to get clock\n");
> +
> +	ret = lgm_clk_enable(dev, pc);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to enable clock\n");

You used dev_err_probe four times for six error paths. I wonder why you
didn't use it here (and below for a failing pwmchip_add()).

> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	pc->rst = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(pc->rst))
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pc->rst),
> +				     "failed to get reset control\n");
> +
> +	ret = lgm_reset_control_deassert(dev, pc);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "cannot deassert reset control\n");

After lgm_reset_control_deassert is called pc->rst is unused. So there
is no need to have this member in struct lgm_pwm_chip. The same applies
to ->clk. (You have to pass rst (or clk) to devm_add_action_or_reset for
that to work. Looks like a nice idea anyhow.)

> +	pc->chip.dev = dev;
> +	pc->chip.ops = &lgm_pwm_ops;
> +	pc->chip.npwm = 1;

pc->chip.base should probably be set to -1.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |