From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760931AbdACTgJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 14:36:09 -0500 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:42873 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760908AbdACTfz (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 14:35:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 20:35:51 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Stefan Agner Cc: Lukasz Majewski , Thierry Reding , Sascha Hauer , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Bhuvanchandra DV , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fabio Estevam , Fabio Estevam , Lothar Wassmann , kernel@pengutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND 07/11] pwm: imx: Provide atomic PWM support for i.MX PWMv2 Message-ID: <20170103203551.737e3a45@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <7401088f38dc214449fe541e43185fda@agner.ch> References: <1477259146-19167-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@majess.pl> <1482792961-12702-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@majess.pl> <1482792961-12702-8-git-send-email-l.majewski@majess.pl> <20161229172117.523a42a4@bbrezillon> <20161229174535.01b87fb7@jawa> <20161229180838.66ca218f@bbrezillon> <20170103124314.4c979807@jawa> <20170103134645.6496a193@bbrezillon> <7401088f38dc214449fe541e43185fda@agner.ch> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 09:29:40 -0800 Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2017-01-03 04:46, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > >> > Well, regarding the imx_pwm_apply_v2() suggested by Stefan, I think we > >> > both agreed that most of the code was unneeded when all we want to do > >> > is disable the PWM. > >> > >> So for the PATCH 7/11 we fix the issue with recalculating clocks > >> when we want to disable PWM. > >> > >> if (state->enabled) { > >> c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per); > >> c *= state->period; > >> > >> do_div(c, 1000000000); > >> period_cycles = c; > >> > >> prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1; > >> > >> period_cycles /= prescale; > >> c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles * > >> state->duty_cycle; > >> do_div(c, state->period); > >> duty_cycles = c; > >> > >> /* > >> * According to imx pwm RM, the real period value > >> * should be PERIOD value in PWMPR plus 2. > >> */ > >> if (period_cycles > 2) > >> period_cycles -= 2; > >> else > >> period_cycles = 0; > >> > >> /* > >> * Enable the clock if the PWM is not already > >> * enabled. > >> */ > >> if (!cstate.enabled) { > >> ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_per); > >> if (ret) > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > >> /* > >> * Wait for a free FIFO slot if the PWM is already > >> * enabled, and flush the FIFO if the PWM was disabled > >> * and is about to be enabled. > >> */ > >> if (cstate.enabled) > >> imx_pwm_wait_fifo_slot(chip, pwm); > >> else > >> imx_pwm_sw_reset(chip); > >> > >> writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR); > >> writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR); > >> > >> writel(MX3_PWMCR_PRESCALER(prescale) | > >> MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN | MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN | > >> MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN | MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH | > >> MX3_PWMCR_EN, > >> imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR); > >> } else { > >> > >> writel(0, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR); > >> > >> /* Disable the clock if the PWM is currently enabled. */ > >> if (cstate.enabled) > >> clk_disable_unprepare(imx->clk_per); > >> } > >> > >> > > > > Yep. > > > > This looks like a good transformation of the current Patch 7, but once > you merge my patch, it will look slightly different... Yes. I think we should just unconditionally enable/disable the per_clk at function entry/exit. The prepare_enable() call is almost free when the clk is already enabled, so it's not like we're adding a huge overhead by doing that. > > >> > >> > > >> > My concern was more about the way PWM changes are applied (->apply() > >> > returns before the change is actually applied), but I agreed that it > >> > could be fixed later on (if other people think it's really needed), > >> > since the existing code already handles it this way. > >> > >> This is the issue with FIFO setting - but for now we do not deal with > >> it. > > > > Exactly. > > > >> > >> > > >> > > No clear decision what to change until today when Stefan prepared > >> > > separate (concise) patch (now I see what is the problem). > >> > > > >> > > >> > The patch proposed by Stefan is addressing a different problem: the > >> > periph clock has to be enabled before accessing registers. > >> > >> So for this reason Stefan's patch [1] always enable the clock no matter > >> if PWM clock is generated or not. > > > > Yes. > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Same goes for the regression introduced in patch 2: I think it's > >> > > > better to keep things bisectable on all platforms (even if it > >> > > > appeared to work by chance on imx7, it did work before this > >> > > > change). > >> > > > >> > > Could you be more specific about your idea to solve this problem? > >> > > >> > Stefan already provided a patch, I just think it should be fixed > >> > before patch 2 to avoid breaking bisectibility. > >> > >> My idea is as follows: > >> > >> I will drop patch v2 (prepared by Sasha) and then squash Stefan's patch > >> [1] to patch 7/11. The "old" ipg enable code will be removed with other > >> not needed code during conversion. > > > > How about keeping patch 2 but enabling/disabling the periph clk > > in imx_pwm_config() instead of completely dropping the enable/disable > > clk sequence. > > > > In patch 7 you just add the logic we talked about earlier: > > unconditionally enable the periph clk when entering the > > imx_pwm_apply_v2() function and disable it before leaving the function. > > > > This way you can preserve bisectibility and still get rid of the ipg > > clk. > > > > Stefan, what's your opinion? > > We will get rid of the ipg clocks anyway in patch 8 (which removes those > functions completely). > > So I think Lukasz approach should be fine, just drop patch 2 and squash > my patch into patch 7. Well, the end result will be same (ipg_clk will be gone after patch 8), but then it's hard to track why this clock suddenly disappeared. I still think it's worth adding an extra commit explaining that enabling the per_clk before accessing IP registers is needed on some platforms (imx7), and that IPG clk is actually not required until we start using it as a source for the PWM signal generation. Maybe I'm the only one to think so. In this case, feel free to drop patch 2. Regards, Boris