* [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver @ 2022-10-07 11:35 Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: fix microchip corePWM's pwm-cells Conor Dooley ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thierry Reding, Uwe Kleine-König, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv, Conor Dooley Hey Uwe, all, ~6.0-rc1 has rolled around so here is the promised v8v9~. v11 is based on 6.0 stuff still & there will be a change to the dts patch in v6.1, but I did a test merge and there was nothing to resolve. I'll take the dts change myself just to be on the safe side. The pre 6.0-rc1 cover letter/series is here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/20220721172109.941900-1-mail@conchuod.ie Thanks, Conor. Changes since v10: - reword some comments - try to assign the period if a disable is requested - drop a cast around a u8 -> u16 conversion - fix a check on period_steps that should be on the hw_ variant - split up the period calculation in get_state() to fix the result on 32 bit - add a rate variable in get_state() to only call get_rate() once. - redo the locking as suggested to make it more straightforward. - stop checking for enablement in get_state() that was working around intended behaviour of the sysfs interface Changes since v9: - fixed the missing unlock that Dan reported Changes since v8: - fixed a(nother) raw 64 bit division (& built it for riscv32!) - added a check to make sure we don't try to sleep for 0 us Changes since v7: - rebased on 6.0-rc1 - reworded comments you highlighted in v7 - fixed the overkill sleeping - removed the unused variables in calc_duty - added some extra comments to explain behaviours you questioned in v7 - make the mutexes un-interruptible - fixed added the 1s you suggested for the if(period_locked) logic - added setup of the channel_enabled shadowing - fixed the period reporting for the negedge == posedge case in get_state() I had to add the enabled check, as otherwise it broke setting the period for the first time out of reset. - added a test for invalid PERIOD_STEPS values, in which case we abort if we cannot fix the period Changes from v6: - Dropped an unused variable that I'd missed - Actually check the return values of the mutex lock()s - Re-rebased on -next for the MAINTAINERS patch (again...) Changes from v5: - switched to a mutex b/c we must sleep with the lock taken - simplified the locking in apply() and added locking to get_state() - reworked apply() as requested - removed the loop in the period calculation (thanks Uwe!) - add a copy of the enable registers in the driver to save on reads. - remove the second (useless) write to sync_update - added some missing rounding in get_state() - couple other minor cleanups as requested in: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220709160206.cw5luo7kxdshoiua@pengutronix.de/ Changes from v4: - dropped some accidentally added files Conor Dooley (4): dt-bindings: pwm: fix microchip corePWM's pwm-cells riscv: dts: fix the icicle's #pwm-cells pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver MAINTAINERS: add pwm to PolarFire SoC entry .../bindings/pwm/microchip,corepwm.yaml | 4 +- MAINTAINERS | 1 + .../dts/microchip/mpfs-icicle-kit-fabric.dtsi | 2 +- drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 10 + drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 + drivers/pwm/pwm-microchip-core.c | 397 ++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 413 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-microchip-core.c -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v11 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: fix microchip corePWM's pwm-cells 2022-10-07 11:35 [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 ` Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 2/4] riscv: dts: fix the icicle's #pwm-cells Conor Dooley ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thierry Reding, Uwe Kleine-König, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv, Conor Dooley, Rob Herring corePWM is capable of inverted operation but the binding requires \#pwm-cells of 2. Expand the binding to support setting the polarity. Fixes: df77f7735786 ("dt-bindings: pwm: add microchip corepwm binding") Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/microchip,corepwm.yaml | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/microchip,corepwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/microchip,corepwm.yaml index a7fae1772a81..cd8e9a8907f8 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/microchip,corepwm.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/microchip,corepwm.yaml @@ -30,7 +30,9 @@ properties: maxItems: 1 "#pwm-cells": - const: 2 + enum: [2, 3] + description: + The only flag supported by the controller is PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED. microchip,sync-update-mask: description: | -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v11 2/4] riscv: dts: fix the icicle's #pwm-cells 2022-10-07 11:35 [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: fix microchip corePWM's pwm-cells Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 ` Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thierry Reding, Uwe Kleine-König, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv, Conor Dooley \#pwm-cells for the Icicle kit's fabric PWM was incorrectly set to 2 & blindly overridden by the (out of tree) driver anyway. The core can support inverted operation, so update the entry to correctly report its capabilities. Fixes: 72560c6559b8 ("riscv: dts: microchip: add fpga fabric section to icicle kit") Reviewed-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> --- arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs-icicle-kit-fabric.dtsi | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs-icicle-kit-fabric.dtsi b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs-icicle-kit-fabric.dtsi index 0d28858b83f2..e09a13aef268 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs-icicle-kit-fabric.dtsi +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs-icicle-kit-fabric.dtsi @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ core_pwm0: pwm@41000000 { compatible = "microchip,corepwm-rtl-v4"; reg = <0x0 0x41000000 0x0 0xF0>; microchip,sync-update-mask = /bits/ 32 <0>; - #pwm-cells = <2>; + #pwm-cells = <3>; clocks = <&fabric_clk3>; status = "disabled"; }; -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v11 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver 2022-10-07 11:35 [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: fix microchip corePWM's pwm-cells Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 2/4] riscv: dts: fix the icicle's #pwm-cells Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 ` Conor Dooley 2022-11-08 15:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 4/4] MAINTAINERS: add pwm to PolarFire SoC entry Conor Dooley 2022-11-09 21:52 ` (subset) [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley 4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thierry Reding, Uwe Kleine-König, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv, Conor Dooley Add a driver that supports the Microchip FPGA "soft" PWM IP core. Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> --- drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 10 + drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 + drivers/pwm/pwm-microchip-core.c | 397 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 408 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-microchip-core.c diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig index 60d13a949bc5..e4de8c02c3c0 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig @@ -393,6 +393,16 @@ config PWM_MEDIATEK To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module will be called pwm-mediatek. +config PWM_MICROCHIP_CORE + tristate "Microchip corePWM PWM support" + depends on SOC_MICROCHIP_POLARFIRE || COMPILE_TEST + depends on HAS_IOMEM && OF + help + PWM driver for Microchip FPGA soft IP core. + + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module + will be called pwm-microchip-core. + config PWM_MXS tristate "Freescale MXS PWM support" depends on ARCH_MXS || COMPILE_TEST diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile index 7bf1a29f02b8..a65625359ece 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LPSS_PCI) += pwm-lpss-pci.o obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LPSS_PLATFORM) += pwm-lpss-platform.o obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_MESON) += pwm-meson.o obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_MEDIATEK) += pwm-mediatek.o +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_MICROCHIP_CORE) += pwm-microchip-core.o obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_MTK_DISP) += pwm-mtk-disp.o obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_MXS) += pwm-mxs.o obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_NTXEC) += pwm-ntxec.o diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-microchip-core.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-microchip-core.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..17c63b16c453 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-microchip-core.c @@ -0,0 +1,397 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * corePWM driver for Microchip "soft" FPGA IP cores. + * + * Copyright (c) 2021-2022 Microchip Corporation. All rights reserved. + * Author: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> + * Documentation: + * https://www.microsemi.com/document-portal/doc_download/1245275-corepwm-hb + * + * Limitations: + * - If the IP block is configured without "shadow registers", all register + * writes will take effect immediately, causing glitches on the output. + * If shadow registers *are* enabled, a write to the "SYNC_UPDATE" register + * notifies the core that it needs to update the registers defining the + * waveform from the contents of the "shadow registers". + * - The IP block has no concept of a duty cycle, only rising/falling edges of + * the waveform. Unfortunately, if the rising & falling edges registers have + * the same value written to them the IP block will do whichever of a rising + * or a falling edge is possible. I.E. a 50% waveform at twice the requested + * period. Therefore to get a 0% waveform, the output is set the max high/low + * time depending on polarity. + * - The PWM period is set for the whole IP block not per channel. The driver + * will only change the period if no other PWM output is enabled. + */ + +#include <linux/clk.h> +#include <linux/delay.h> +#include <linux/err.h> +#include <linux/io.h> +#include <linux/math.h> +#include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/mutex.h> +#include <linux/of_device.h> +#include <linux/platform_device.h> +#include <linux/pwm.h> + +#define PREG_TO_VAL(PREG) ((PREG) + 1) + +#define MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE_MAX 0x100 +#define MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_STEPS_MAX 0xff +#define MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_MAX 0xff00 + +#define MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE 0x00 +#define MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD 0x04 +#define MCHPCOREPWM_EN(i) (0x08 + 0x04 * (i)) /* 0x08, 0x0c */ +#define MCHPCOREPWM_POSEDGE(i) (0x10 + 0x08 * (i)) /* 0x10, 0x18, ..., 0x88 */ +#define MCHPCOREPWM_NEGEDGE(i) (0x14 + 0x08 * (i)) /* 0x14, 0x1c, ..., 0x8c */ +#define MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD 0xe4 + +struct mchp_core_pwm_chip { + struct pwm_chip chip; + struct clk *clk; + struct mutex lock; /* protect the shared period */ + void __iomem *base; + u32 sync_update_mask; + u16 channel_enabled; +}; + +static inline struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *to_mchp_core_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip) +{ + return container_of(chip, struct mchp_core_pwm_chip, chip); +} + +static void mchp_core_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + bool enable, u64 period) +{ + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); + u8 channel_enable, reg_offset, shift; + + /* + * There are two adjacent 8 bit control regs, the lower reg controls + * 0-7 and the upper reg 8-15. Check if the pwm is in the upper reg + * and if so, offset by the bus width. + */ + reg_offset = MCHPCOREPWM_EN(pwm->hwpwm >> 3); + shift = pwm->hwpwm & 7; + + channel_enable = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + reg_offset); + channel_enable &= ~(1 << shift); + channel_enable |= (enable << shift); + + writel_relaxed(channel_enable, mchp_core_pwm->base + reg_offset); + mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled &= ~BIT(pwm->hwpwm); + mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled |= enable << pwm->hwpwm; + + /* + * Notify the block to update the waveform from the shadow registers. + * The updated values will not appear on the bus until they have been + * applied to the waveform at the beginning of the next period. We must + * write these registers and wait for them to be applied before + * considering the channel enabled. + * If the delay is under 1 us, sleep for at least 1 us anyway. + */ + if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << pwm->hwpwm)) { + u64 delay; + + delay = div_u64(period, 1000u) ? : 1u; + writel_relaxed(1U, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD); + usleep_range(delay, delay * 2); + } +} + +static u64 mchp_core_pwm_calc_duty(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + const struct pwm_state *state, u8 prescale, u8 period_steps) +{ + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); + u64 duty_steps, tmp; + u16 prescale_val = PREG_TO_VAL(prescale); + + /* + * Calculate the duty cycle in multiples of the prescaled period: + * duty_steps = duty_in_ns / step_in_ns + * step_in_ns = (prescale * NSEC_PER_SEC) / clk_rate + * The code below is rearranged slightly to only divide once. + */ + duty_steps = state->duty_cycle * clk_get_rate(mchp_core_pwm->clk); + tmp = prescale_val * NSEC_PER_SEC; + return div64_u64(duty_steps, tmp); +} + +static void mchp_core_pwm_apply_duty(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + const struct pwm_state *state, u64 duty_steps, u8 period_steps) +{ + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); + u8 posedge, negedge; + u8 period_steps_val = PREG_TO_VAL(period_steps); + + /* + * Setting posedge == negedge doesn't yield a constant output, + * so that's an unsuitable setting to model duty_steps = 0. + * In that case set the unwanted edge to a value that never + * triggers. + */ + if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED) { + negedge = !duty_steps ? period_steps_val : 0u; + posedge = duty_steps; + } else { + posedge = !duty_steps ? period_steps_val : 0u; + negedge = duty_steps; + } + + writel_relaxed(posedge, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_POSEDGE(pwm->hwpwm)); + writel_relaxed(negedge, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_NEGEDGE(pwm->hwpwm)); +} + +static int mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(struct pwm_chip *chip, const struct pwm_state *state, + u16 *prescale, u8 *period_steps) +{ + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); + u64 tmp, clk_rate; + + /* + * Calculate the period cycles and prescale values. + * The registers are each 8 bits wide & multiplied to compute the period + * using the formula: + * (clock_period) * (prescale + 1) * (period_steps + 1) + * so the maximum period that can be generated is 0x10000 times the + * period of the input clock. + * However, due to the design of the "hardware", it is not possible to + * attain a 100% duty cycle if the full range of period_steps is used. + * Therefore period_steps is restricted to 0xFE and the maximum multiple + * of the clock period attainable is 0xFF00. + */ + clk_rate = clk_get_rate(mchp_core_pwm->clk); + + /* + * If clk_rate is too big, the following multiplication might overflow. + * However this is implausible, as the fabric of current FPGAs cannot + * provide clocks at a rate high enough. + */ + if (clk_rate >= NSEC_PER_SEC) + return -EINVAL; + + tmp = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(state->period, clk_rate, NSEC_PER_SEC); + + /* + * The hardware adds one to the register value, so decrement by one to + * account for the offset + */ + if (tmp >= MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_MAX) { + *prescale = MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE_MAX - 1; + *period_steps = MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_STEPS_MAX - 1; + return 0; + } + + *prescale = div_u64(tmp, MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_STEPS_MAX); + /* PREG_TO_VAL() can produce a value larger than UINT8_MAX */ + *period_steps = div_u64(tmp, PREG_TO_VAL(*prescale)) - 1; + + return 0; +} + +static inline void mchp_core_pwm_apply_period(struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm, + u8 prescale, u8 period_steps) +{ + writel_relaxed(prescale, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE); + writel_relaxed(period_steps, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD); +} + +static int mchp_core_pwm_apply_locked(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + const struct pwm_state *state) +{ + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); + struct pwm_state current_state = pwm->state; + bool period_locked; + u64 duty_steps; + u16 prescale; + u8 period_steps; + + if (!state->enabled) { + mchp_core_pwm_enable(chip, pwm, false, current_state.period); + return 0; + } + + /* + * If the only thing that has changed is the duty cycle or the polarity, + * we can shortcut the calculations and just compute/apply the new duty + * cycle pos & neg edges + * As all the channels share the same period, do not allow it to be + * changed if any other channels are enabled. + * If the period is locked, it may not be possible to use a period + * less than that requested. In that case, we just abort. + */ + period_locked = mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled & ~(1 << pwm->hwpwm); + + if (period_locked) { + u16 hw_prescale; + u8 hw_period_steps; + + mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(chip, state, &prescale, &period_steps); + hw_prescale = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE); + hw_period_steps = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD); + + if ((period_steps + 1) * (prescale + 1) < + (hw_period_steps + 1) * (hw_prescale + 1)) + return -EINVAL; + + /* + * It is possible that something could have set the period_steps + * register to 0xff, which would prevent us from setting a 100% + * or 0% relative duty cycle, as explained above in + * mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(). + * The period is locked and we cannot change this, so we abort. + */ + if (hw_period_steps == MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_STEPS_MAX) + return -EINVAL; + + prescale = hw_prescale; + period_steps = hw_period_steps; + } else { + int ret; + + ret = mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(chip, state, &prescale, &period_steps); + if (ret) + return ret; + + mchp_core_pwm_apply_period(mchp_core_pwm, prescale, period_steps); + } + + duty_steps = mchp_core_pwm_calc_duty(chip, pwm, state, prescale, period_steps); + + /* + * Because the period is per channel, it is possible that the requested + * duty cycle is longer than the period, in which case cap it to the + * period, IOW a 100% duty cycle. + */ + if (duty_steps > period_steps) + duty_steps = period_steps + 1; + + mchp_core_pwm_apply_duty(chip, pwm, state, duty_steps, period_steps); + + mchp_core_pwm_enable(chip, pwm, true, state->period); + + return 0; +} + +static int mchp_core_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + const struct pwm_state *state) +{ + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); + int ret; + + mutex_lock(&mchp_core_pwm->lock); + + ret = mchp_core_pwm_apply_locked(chip, pwm, state); + + mutex_unlock(&mchp_core_pwm->lock); + + return ret; +} + +static void mchp_core_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + struct pwm_state *state) +{ + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); + u64 rate; + u16 prescale; + u8 period_steps, duty_steps, posedge, negedge; + + mutex_lock(&mchp_core_pwm->lock); + + if (mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled & (1 << pwm->hwpwm)) + state->enabled = true; + else + state->enabled = false; + + rate = clk_get_rate(mchp_core_pwm->clk); + + prescale = PREG_TO_VAL(readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE)); + + period_steps = PREG_TO_VAL(readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD)); + state->period = period_steps * prescale; + state->period *= NSEC_PER_SEC; + state->period = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(state->period, rate); + + posedge = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_POSEDGE(pwm->hwpwm)); + negedge = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_NEGEDGE(pwm->hwpwm)); + + mutex_unlock(&mchp_core_pwm->lock); + + if (negedge == posedge) { + state->duty_cycle = state->period; + state->period *= 2; + } else { + duty_steps = abs((s16)posedge - (s16)negedge); + state->duty_cycle = duty_steps * prescale * NSEC_PER_SEC; + state->duty_cycle = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(state->duty_cycle, rate); + } + + state->polarity = negedge < posedge ? PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED : PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; +} + +static const struct pwm_ops mchp_core_pwm_ops = { + .apply = mchp_core_pwm_apply, + .get_state = mchp_core_pwm_get_state, + .owner = THIS_MODULE, +}; + +static const struct of_device_id mchp_core_of_match[] = { + { + .compatible = "microchip,corepwm-rtl-v4", + }, + { /* sentinel */ } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mchp_core_of_match); + +static int mchp_core_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_pwm; + struct resource *regs; + int ret; + + mchp_pwm = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mchp_pwm), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!mchp_pwm) + return -ENOMEM; + + mchp_pwm->base = devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0, ®s); + if (IS_ERR(mchp_pwm->base)) + return PTR_ERR(mchp_pwm->base); + + mchp_pwm->clk = devm_clk_get_enabled(&pdev->dev, NULL); + if (IS_ERR(mchp_pwm->clk)) + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(mchp_pwm->clk), + "failed to get PWM clock\n"); + + if (of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "microchip,sync-update-mask", + &mchp_pwm->sync_update_mask)) + mchp_pwm->sync_update_mask = 0; + + mutex_init(&mchp_pwm->lock); + + mchp_pwm->chip.dev = &pdev->dev; + mchp_pwm->chip.ops = &mchp_core_pwm_ops; + mchp_pwm->chip.npwm = 16; + + mchp_pwm->channel_enabled = readb_relaxed(mchp_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_EN(0)); + mchp_pwm->channel_enabled |= readb_relaxed(mchp_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_EN(1)) << 8; + + ret = devm_pwmchip_add(&pdev->dev, &mchp_pwm->chip); + if (ret < 0) + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "failed to add PWM chip\n"); + + return 0; +} + +static struct platform_driver mchp_core_pwm_driver = { + .driver = { + .name = "mchp-core-pwm", + .of_match_table = mchp_core_of_match, + }, + .probe = mchp_core_pwm_probe, +}; +module_platform_driver(mchp_core_pwm_driver); + +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); +MODULE_AUTHOR("Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>"); +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("corePWM driver for Microchip FPGAs"); -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v11 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley @ 2022-11-08 15:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2022-11-08 18:32 ` Conor Dooley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2022-11-08 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Conor Dooley Cc: Thierry Reding, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4204 bytes --] Hello, On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 12:35:12PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > [...] > +static u64 mchp_core_pwm_calc_duty(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > + const struct pwm_state *state, u8 prescale, u8 period_steps) > +{ > + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); > + u64 duty_steps, tmp; > + u16 prescale_val = PREG_TO_VAL(prescale); > + > + /* > + * Calculate the duty cycle in multiples of the prescaled period: > + * duty_steps = duty_in_ns / step_in_ns > + * step_in_ns = (prescale * NSEC_PER_SEC) / clk_rate > + * The code below is rearranged slightly to only divide once. > + */ > + duty_steps = state->duty_cycle * clk_get_rate(mchp_core_pwm->clk); > + tmp = prescale_val * NSEC_PER_SEC; > + return div64_u64(duty_steps, tmp); The assignment to duty_steps can overflow. So you have to use mul_u64_u64_div_u64 here, too. > +} > + > [...] > + > +static int mchp_core_pwm_apply_locked(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > + const struct pwm_state *state) > +{ > + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); > + struct pwm_state current_state = pwm->state; > + bool period_locked; > + u64 duty_steps; > + u16 prescale; > + u8 period_steps; > + > + if (!state->enabled) { > + mchp_core_pwm_enable(chip, pwm, false, current_state.period); > + return 0; > + } > + > + /* > + * If the only thing that has changed is the duty cycle or the polarity, > + * we can shortcut the calculations and just compute/apply the new duty > + * cycle pos & neg edges > + * As all the channels share the same period, do not allow it to be > + * changed if any other channels are enabled. > + * If the period is locked, it may not be possible to use a period > + * less than that requested. In that case, we just abort. > + */ > + period_locked = mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled & ~(1 << pwm->hwpwm); > + > + if (period_locked) { > + u16 hw_prescale; > + u8 hw_period_steps; > + > + mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(chip, state, &prescale, &period_steps); > + hw_prescale = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE); > + hw_period_steps = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD); > + > + if ((period_steps + 1) * (prescale + 1) < > + (hw_period_steps + 1) * (hw_prescale + 1)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + /* > + * It is possible that something could have set the period_steps > + * register to 0xff, which would prevent us from setting a 100% > + * or 0% relative duty cycle, as explained above in > + * mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(). > + * The period is locked and we cannot change this, so we abort. > + */ > + if (hw_period_steps == MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_STEPS_MAX) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + prescale = hw_prescale; > + period_steps = hw_period_steps; > + } else { > + int ret; > + > + ret = mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(chip, state, &prescale, &period_steps); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + mchp_core_pwm_apply_period(mchp_core_pwm, prescale, period_steps); > + } > + > + duty_steps = mchp_core_pwm_calc_duty(chip, pwm, state, prescale, period_steps); Both mchp_core_pwm_calc_period and mchp_core_pwm_calc_duty call clk_get_rate(), I suggest call this only once and pass the rate to these two functions. Both branches of the if above start with calling mchp_core_pwm_calc_period, this could be simplified, too. (Hmm, in exactly one of them you check the return code, wouldn't that be sensible for both callers?) > + > + /* > + * Because the period is per channel, it is possible that the requested > + * duty cycle is longer than the period, in which case cap it to the > + * period, IOW a 100% duty cycle. > + */ > + if (duty_steps > period_steps) > + duty_steps = period_steps + 1; > + > + mchp_core_pwm_apply_duty(chip, pwm, state, duty_steps, period_steps); > + > + mchp_core_pwm_enable(chip, pwm, true, state->period); > + > + return 0; > +} Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v11 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver 2022-11-08 15:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König @ 2022-11-08 18:32 ` Conor Dooley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Conor Dooley @ 2022-11-08 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Uwe Kleine-König Cc: Conor Dooley, Thierry Reding, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:50:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, Hello! Thanks for the review Uwe :) > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 12:35:12PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > +static int mchp_core_pwm_apply_locked(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > > + const struct pwm_state *state) > > +{ > > + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip); > > + struct pwm_state current_state = pwm->state; > > + bool period_locked; > > + u64 duty_steps; > > + u16 prescale; > > + u8 period_steps; > > + > > + if (!state->enabled) { > > + mchp_core_pwm_enable(chip, pwm, false, current_state.period); > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > + /* > > + * If the only thing that has changed is the duty cycle or the polarity, > > + * we can shortcut the calculations and just compute/apply the new duty > > + * cycle pos & neg edges > > + * As all the channels share the same period, do not allow it to be > > + * changed if any other channels are enabled. > > + * If the period is locked, it may not be possible to use a period > > + * less than that requested. In that case, we just abort. > > + */ > > + period_locked = mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled & ~(1 << pwm->hwpwm); > > + > > + if (period_locked) { > > + u16 hw_prescale; > > + u8 hw_period_steps; > > + > > + mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(chip, state, &prescale, &period_steps); > > + hw_prescale = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE); > > + hw_period_steps = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD); > > + > > + if ((period_steps + 1) * (prescale + 1) < > > + (hw_period_steps + 1) * (hw_prescale + 1)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + /* > > + * It is possible that something could have set the period_steps > > + * register to 0xff, which would prevent us from setting a 100% > > + * or 0% relative duty cycle, as explained above in > > + * mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(). > > + * The period is locked and we cannot change this, so we abort. > > + */ > > + if (hw_period_steps == MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_STEPS_MAX) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + prescale = hw_prescale; > > + period_steps = hw_period_steps; > > + } else { > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(chip, state, &prescale, &period_steps); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + mchp_core_pwm_apply_period(mchp_core_pwm, prescale, period_steps); > > + } > > + > > + duty_steps = mchp_core_pwm_calc_duty(chip, pwm, state, prescale, period_steps); > > Both mchp_core_pwm_calc_period and mchp_core_pwm_calc_duty call > clk_get_rate(), I suggest call this only once and pass the rate to these > two functions. Sure. I think the signatures of both of those functions could be reduced in the process which would be nice. > Both branches of the if above start with calling > mchp_core_pwm_calc_period, this could be simplified, too. ret = mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(chip, state, &prescale, &period_steps); if (ret) return ret; period_locked = mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled & ~(1 << pwm->hwpwm); if (period_locked) { u16 hw_prescale; u8 hw_period_steps; hw_prescale = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PRESCALE); hw_period_steps = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD); if ((period_steps + 1) * (prescale + 1) < (hw_period_steps + 1) * (hw_prescale + 1)) return -EINVAL; /* * It is possible that something could have set the period_steps * register to 0xff, which would prevent us from setting a 100% * or 0% relative duty cycle, as explained above in * mchp_core_pwm_calc_period(). * The period is locked and we cannot change this, so we abort. */ if (hw_period_steps == MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_STEPS_MAX) return -EINVAL; prescale = hw_prescale; period_steps = hw_period_steps; } else { mchp_core_pwm_apply_period(mchp_core_pwm, prescale, period_steps); } duty_steps = mchp_core_pwm_calc_duty(chip, pwm, state, prescale, period_steps); I'll aim for something like the (absolutely untested) above then when I respin. > (Hmm, in > exactly one of them you check the return code, wouldn't that be sensible > for both callers?) Been messing with rust a bit of late, I love the #[must_use] attribute. Looks to be an oversight since it's only going to return an error if the clock rate exceeds what the FPGA is actually capable of. Thanks again, Conor. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v11 4/4] MAINTAINERS: add pwm to PolarFire SoC entry 2022-10-07 11:35 [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 ` Conor Dooley 2022-11-09 9:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2022-11-09 21:52 ` (subset) [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley 4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Conor Dooley @ 2022-10-07 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thierry Reding, Uwe Kleine-König, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv, Conor Dooley Add the newly introduced pwm driver to the existing PolarFire SoC entry. Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> --- MAINTAINERS | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 8a5012ba6ff9..5db66c743595 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -17532,6 +17532,7 @@ F: drivers/char/hw_random/mpfs-rng.c F: drivers/clk/microchip/clk-mpfs.c F: drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mpfs.c F: drivers/pci/controller/pcie-microchip-host.c +F: drivers/pwm/pwm-microchip-core.c F: drivers/rtc/rtc-mpfs.c F: drivers/soc/microchip/ F: drivers/spi/spi-microchip-core.c -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v11 4/4] MAINTAINERS: add pwm to PolarFire SoC entry 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 4/4] MAINTAINERS: add pwm to PolarFire SoC entry Conor Dooley @ 2022-11-09 9:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2022-11-09 10:47 ` Conor Dooley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2022-11-09 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Conor Dooley Cc: Thierry Reding, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 869 bytes --] On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 12:35:13PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > Add the newly introduced pwm driver to the existing PolarFire SoC entry. > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> I assume you will rework the series and resend this one with the driver patche. Applying patch #4 alone doesn't make sense, so I'm marking this one as "changes requested", too, in the PWM patchwork instance. IMHO patches #1 and #2 make sense to be applied already without the driver given the binding is already there. I assume they will go in via the riscv tree, so I will mark these two as "handled elsewhere". Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v11 4/4] MAINTAINERS: add pwm to PolarFire SoC entry 2022-11-09 9:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König @ 2022-11-09 10:47 ` Conor Dooley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Conor Dooley @ 2022-11-09 10:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Uwe Kleine-König Cc: Thierry Reding, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-pwm, linux-riscv On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 10:35:25AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 12:35:13PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > Add the newly introduced pwm driver to the existing PolarFire SoC entry. > > > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > I assume you will rework the series and resend this one with the driver > patche. Applying patch #4 alone doesn't make sense, so I'm marking this > one as "changes requested", too, in the PWM patchwork instance. > > IMHO patches #1 and #2 make sense to be applied already without the > driver given the binding is already there. I assume they will go in via > the riscv tree, so I will mark these two as "handled elsewhere". Right. Makes sense to me - I'll take the dt-binding & the dt via the riscv (or soc, we're changing things up there [a]) tree. Thanks, Conor. [a] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/mhng-e4210f56-fcc3-4db8-abdb-d43b3ebe695d@palmer-ri-x1c9a/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: (subset) [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver 2022-10-07 11:35 [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 4/4] MAINTAINERS: add pwm to PolarFire SoC entry Conor Dooley @ 2022-11-09 21:52 ` Conor Dooley 4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Conor Dooley @ 2022-11-09 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring, Uwe Kleine-König, Thierry Reding, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley Cc: Daire McNamara, devicetree, linux-kernel, linux-riscv, linux-pwm From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 12:35:09 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > Hey Uwe, all, > > ~6.0-rc1 has rolled around so here is the promised v8v9~. > v11 is based on 6.0 stuff still & there will be a change to the dts > patch in v6.1, but I did a test merge and there was nothing to resolve. > I'll take the dts change myself just to be on the safe side. > > [...] Applied to dt-for-next, thanks! [1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: fix microchip corePWM's pwm-cells https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/a62d196e8988 [2/4] riscv: dts: fix the icicle's #pwm-cells https://git.kernel.org/conor/c/ac2bcd194cc5 Thanks, Conor. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-11-09 21:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-10-07 11:35 [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: fix microchip corePWM's pwm-cells Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 2/4] riscv: dts: fix the icicle's #pwm-cells Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley 2022-11-08 15:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2022-11-08 18:32 ` Conor Dooley 2022-10-07 11:35 ` [PATCH v11 4/4] MAINTAINERS: add pwm to PolarFire SoC entry Conor Dooley 2022-11-09 9:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2022-11-09 10:47 ` Conor Dooley 2022-11-09 21:52 ` (subset) [PATCH v11 0/4] Microchip soft ip corePWM driver Conor Dooley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).