All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"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>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	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: [PATCH v4 05/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
Date: Wed,  8 Jul 2020 23:14:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200708211432.28612-6-hdegoede@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200708211432.28612-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>

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 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 | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index 80d0f9c64f9d..4f3d60ce9929 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -123,25 +123,31 @@ 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_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;
 
 	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_is_updating(pwm);
 			if (ret) {
-				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+				if (!from_resume)
+					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) {
-				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+				if (!from_resume)
+					pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+
 				return ret;
 			}
 			pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true);
@@ -154,12 +160,20 @@ static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 		}
 	} 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 0;
 }
 
+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)
 {
@@ -272,10 +286,40 @@ 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


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"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>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 05/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
Date: Wed,  8 Jul 2020 23:14:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200708211432.28612-6-hdegoede@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200708211432.28612-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>

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 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 | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index 80d0f9c64f9d..4f3d60ce9929 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -123,25 +123,31 @@ 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_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;
 
 	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_is_updating(pwm);
 			if (ret) {
-				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+				if (!from_resume)
+					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) {
-				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+				if (!from_resume)
+					pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+
 				return ret;
 			}
 			pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true);
@@ -154,12 +160,20 @@ static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 		}
 	} 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 0;
 }
 
+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)
 {
@@ -272,10 +286,40 @@ 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

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"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>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@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>
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 05/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume
Date: Wed,  8 Jul 2020 23:14:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200708211432.28612-6-hdegoede@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200708211432.28612-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>

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 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 | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index 80d0f9c64f9d..4f3d60ce9929 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -123,25 +123,31 @@ 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_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;
 
 	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_is_updating(pwm);
 			if (ret) {
-				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+				if (!from_resume)
+					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) {
-				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+				if (!from_resume)
+					pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+
 				return ret;
 			}
 			pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true);
@@ -154,12 +160,20 @@ static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 		}
 	} 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 0;
 }
 
+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)
 {
@@ -272,10 +286,40 @@ 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

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-07-08 21:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-08 21:14 [PATCH v4 00/15] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 01/16] ACPI / LPSS: Resume Cherry Trail PWM controller in no-irq phase Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 02/16] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (at activation) Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 03/16] pwm: lpss: Fix off by one error in base_unit math in pwm_lpss_prepare() Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 12:53   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 12:53     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 12:53     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 13:23     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 13:23       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 13:23       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 14:21       ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 14:21         ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 14:21         ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 14:33         ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 14:33           ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 14:33           ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 14:51           ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 14:51             ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 14:51             ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-08 21:14 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 05/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 13:36   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 13:36     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 13:36     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 13:48     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 13:48       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 13:48       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 06/16] pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0 Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 14:50   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 14:50     ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 14:50     ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-07-09 15:47     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 15:47       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 15:47       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-11  6:11       ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11  6:11         ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11  6:11         ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11 13:58         ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-11 13:58           ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-11 13:58           ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 07/16] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256 Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 08/16] pwm: crc: Fix off-by-one error in the clock-divider calculations Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 09/16] pwm: crc: Fix period changes not having any effect Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 10/16] pwm: crc: Enable/disable PWM output on enable/disable Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 11/16] pwm: crc: Implement apply() method to support the new atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 13/16] drm/i915: panel: Add get_vbt_pwm_freq() helper Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 14/16] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 15/16] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM min setting " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14 ` [PATCH v4 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 21:14   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-11  6:32   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11  6:32     ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11  6:32     ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11 13:51     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-11 13:51       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-11 13:51       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-08 22:28 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API (rev2) Patchwork
2020-07-08 22:49 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2020-07-09  3:33 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2020-07-09  7:09   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 14:14 ` [PATCH v4 00/15] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Sam Ravnborg
2020-07-09 14:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Sam Ravnborg
2020-07-09 14:14   ` Sam Ravnborg
2020-07-09 14:40   ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 14:40     ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 14:40     ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-09 15:23     ` Sam Ravnborg
2020-07-09 15:23       ` [Intel-gfx] " Sam Ravnborg
2020-07-09 15:23       ` Sam Ravnborg
2020-07-11  6:19     ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11  6:19       ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11  6:19       ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-11 13:46       ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-11 13:46         ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-11 13:46         ` Hans de Goede

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200708211432.28612-6-hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    --cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.