[PATCH v3 3/6] pwm: imx: support output polarity inversion

Stefan Agner stefan at agner.ch
Thu Oct 20 15:46:18 PDT 2016 

On 2016-10-20 01:30, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> > On 2016-10-12 15:15, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> > > Hi Stefan,
>> > >
>> > >> On 2016-10-07 08:11, Bhuvanchandra DV wrote:
>> > >> > From: Lothar Wassmann <LW at KARO-electronics.de>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The i.MX pwm unit on i.MX27 and newer SoCs provides a
>> > >> > configurable output polarity. This patch adds support to
>> > >> > utilize this feature where available.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Signed-off-by: Lothar Waßmann <LW at KARO-electronics.de>
>> > >> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski at samsung.com>
>> > >> > Signed-off-by: Bhuvanchandra DV <bhuvanchandra.dv at toradex.com>
>> > >> > Acked-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org>
>> > >> > Reviewed-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>
>> > >> > ---
>> > >> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.txt |  6 +--
>> > >> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c                             | 51
>> > >> > +++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 6
>> > >> > deletions(-)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.txt
>> > >> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.txt
>> > >> > index e00c2e9..c61bdf8 100644
>> > >> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.txt
>> > >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.txt
>> > >> > @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ Required properties:
>> > >> >    - "fsl,imx1-pwm" for PWM compatible with the one integrated
>> > >> > on i.MX1
>> > >> >    - "fsl,imx27-pwm" for PWM compatible with the one integrated
>> > >> > on i.MX27
>> > >> >  - reg: physical base address and length of the controller's
>> > >> > registers -- #pwm-cells: should be 2. See pwm.txt in this
>> > >> > directory for a description of
>> > >> > -  the cells format.
>> > >> > +- #pwm-cells: 2 for i.MX1 and 3 for i.MX27 and newer SoCs. See
>> > >> > pwm.txt
>> > >> > +  in this directory for a description of the cells format.
>> > >> >  - clocks : Clock specifiers for both ipg and per clocks.
>> > >> >  - clock-names : Clock names should include both "ipg" and
>> > >> > "per" See the clock consumer binding,
>> > >> > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ See the clock consumer binding,
>> > >> >  Example:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  pwm1: pwm at 53fb4000 {
>> > >> > -	#pwm-cells = <2>;
>> > >> > +	#pwm-cells = <3>;
>> > >> >  	compatible = "fsl,imx53-pwm", "fsl,imx27-pwm";
>> > >> >  	reg = <0x53fb4000 0x4000>;
>> > >> >  	clocks = <&clks IMX5_CLK_PWM1_IPG_GATE>,
>> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>> > >> > index d600fd5..c37d223 100644
>> > >> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>> > >> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
>> > >> > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
>> > >> >  #define MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN		(1 << 24)
>> > >> >  #define MX3_PWMCR_WAITEN		(1 << 23)
>> > >> >  #define MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN			(1 << 22)
>> > >> > +#define MX3_PWMCR_POUTC			(1 << 18)
>> > >> >  #define MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG_HIGH	(2 << 16)
>> > >> >  #define MX3_PWMCR_CLKSRC_IPG		(1 << 16)
>> > >> >  #define MX3_PWMCR_SWR			(1 << 3)
>> > >> > @@ -180,6 +181,9 @@ static int imx_pwm_config_v2(struct
>> > >> > pwm_chip *chip, if (enable)
>> > >> >  		cr |= MX3_PWMCR_EN;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > +	if (pwm->args.polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
>> > >> > +		cr |= MX3_PWMCR_POUTC;
>> > >> > +
>> > >>
>> > >> This seems wrong to me, the config callback is meant for
>> > >> period/duty cycle only.
> 
> Unfortunately, it also resets the PWM IP block and setups it again (by
> writing to PWMCR register). In that function we setup for example
> MX3_PWMCR_DOZEEN
> and MX3_PWMCR_DBGEN. Why cannot we setup polarity as well?
> 
> 
> I've double checked the backlight and pwm code flow.
> 
> Please find following snippet:
> 
> [    0.135545] ######### imx_pwm_probe
> [    0.135581] PWM supports output inversion
> [    0.136864] ######### pwm_backlight_probe
> [    0.136913] backlight supply power not found, using dummy regulator
> [    0.136984] ######### imx_pwm_set_polarity 1
> [    0.136995] imx_pwm_set_polarity: polarity set to inverted cr:
> 0x40000 0xf08f8000
> [    0.137005] #########0 imx_pwm_config_v2 cr: 0x40000 
> [    0.137683] #########1 imx_pwm_config_v2 cr: 0x0 0xf08f8000
> [    0.137693] #########2 imx_pwm_config_v2 cr: 0x1c20050
> [    0.137702] #########3 imx_pwm_config_v2 cr: 0x1c20050 0xf08f8000
> [    0.137711] @@@@@@@@@@ pwm_apply_state
> 
> Here the pwm_backlight_probe calls set_polarity callback available in
> pwm - the polarity is set (the 0x40000 value).
> 
> The above operation is performed in pwm_apply_state (@ drivers/pwm/core.c). 
> In the same function, latter we call the pwm->chip->ops->config(), which is the
> pointer to config_v2.
> Since the PWM is not yet enabled, this function performs SW reset and
> PWM inversion setting is cleared.

That function should not do that. It was probably already problematic in
the old times, it is definitely now with the atomic PWM stuff.

> 
> Possible solutions:
> 
> 1. Leave the original patch from Bhuvanchandra as it was (I'm for this 
> option)

That really seems like a hack to me, and makes transition to the atomic
PWM API more complex.

If we can't make it happen properly in the current state of affairs, we
probably should first move to the atomic API.

It really should not be that hard, since we already do almost everything
in one function (imx_pwm_config_v2). We probably can almost just assign
that function to the new apply function pointer and read information
from the new state struct.

There are examples for instance here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7228221/

--
Stefan

> 
> 2. Enable early PWM (in core, or in bl driver) so the config_v2 is not
> calling SW reset on the PWM. (but this solutions seems _really_ bad to me)
> 
> 3. Perform defer probe of pwm backlight driver (pwm_bl.c) until the pwm
> is fully configured (it might be a bit tricky).
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Łukasz Majewski
> 
>> > >
>> > > If it is meant only for that, then the polarity should be removed
>> > > from it.
>> > >
>> > > However after very quick testing, at least on my setup, it turns
>> > > out that removing this lines causes polarity to _not_ being set
>> > > (and the polarity is not inverted).
>> > >
>> > > I will investigate this further on my setup and hopefully sent
>> > > proper patch.
>> > >
>> > >> The set_polarity callback should get called in case a
>> > >> different polarity is requested.
>> > >
>> > > On my setup the pwm2 is set from DT and pwm_backlight_probe()
>> > > calls pwm_apply_args(), so everything should work. However, as I
>> > > mentioned above there still is some problem with inversion
>> > > setting.
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >  	writel(cr, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  	return 0;
>> > >> > @@ -240,27 +244,62 @@ static void imx_pwm_disable(struct
>> > >> > pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>> > >> >  	clk_disable_unprepare(imx->clk_per);
>> > >> >  }
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops = {
>> > >> > +static int imx_pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct
>> > >> > pwm_device *pwm,
>> > >> > +				enum pwm_polarity polarity)
>> > >> > +{
>> > >> > +	struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
>> > >> > +	u32 val;
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > +	if (polarity == pwm->args.polarity)
>> > >> > +		return 0;
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't think that this is right. Today, pwm_apply_args (in
>> > >> include/linux/pwm.h) copies the polarity from args to
>> > >> state.polarity, which is then passed as polarity argument to this
>> > >> function. So this will always return 0 afaict.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, I've overlooked it (that the state is copied).
>> > >
>> > > It can be dropped.
>> >
>> > Did you do the above test with that line dropped?
>>
>> Yes. The above code has been also removed.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Łukasz Majewski
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> I would just drop that.
>> > >>
>> > >> There is probably one little problem in the current state of
>> > >> affairs: If the bootloader makes use of a PWM channel with
>> > >> inverted state, then the kernel would not know about that and
>> > >> currently assume a wrong initial state... I guess at one point in
>> > >> time we should implement the state retrieval callback and move to
>> > >> the new atomic PWM API, which would mean to implement apply
>> > >> callback.
>> > >
>> > > Are there any patches on the horizon?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Not that I know of...
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stefan
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Stefan
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > +	val = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > +	if (polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
>> > >> > +		val |= MX3_PWMCR_POUTC;
>> > >> > +	else
>> > >> > +		val &= ~MX3_PWMCR_POUTC;
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > +	writel(val, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > +	dev_dbg(imx->chip.dev, "%s: polarity set to %s\n",
>> > >> > __func__,
>> > >> > +		polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED ?
>> > >> > "inverted" : "normal"); +
>> > >> > +	return 0;
>> > >> > +}
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > +static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v1 = {
>> > >> >  	.enable = imx_pwm_enable,
>> > >> >  	.disable = imx_pwm_disable,
>> > >> >  	.config = imx_pwm_config,
>> > >> >  	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> > >> >  };
>> > >> >
>> > >> > +static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = {
>> > >> > +	.enable = imx_pwm_enable,
>> > >> > +	.disable = imx_pwm_disable,
>> > >> > +	.set_polarity = imx_pwm_set_polarity,
>> > >> > +	.config = imx_pwm_config,
>> > >> > +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> > >> > +};
>> > >> > +
>> > >> >  struct imx_pwm_data {
>> > >> >  	int (*config)(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>> > >> >  		struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int
>> > >> > period_ns); void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
>> > >> > enable);
>> > >> > +	struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops;
>> > >> >  };
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = {
>> > >> >  	.config = imx_pwm_config_v1,
>> > >> >  	.set_enable = imx_pwm_set_enable_v1,
>> > >> > +	.pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v1,
>> > >> >  };
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = {
>> > >> >  	.config = imx_pwm_config_v2,
>> > >> >  	.set_enable = imx_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>> > >> > +	.pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2,
>> > >> >  };
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  static const struct of_device_id imx_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
>> > >> > @@ -282,6 +321,8 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct
>> > >> > platform_device *pdev) if (!of_id)
>> > >> >  		return -ENODEV;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > +	data = of_id->data;
>> > >> > +
>> > >> >  	imx = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*imx),
>> > >> > GFP_KERNEL); if (imx == NULL)
>> > >> >  		return -ENOMEM;
>> > >> > @@ -300,18 +341,22 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct
>> > >> > platform_device *pdev) return PTR_ERR(imx->clk_ipg);
>> > >> >  	}
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -	imx->chip.ops = &imx_pwm_ops;
>> > >> > +	imx->chip.ops = data->pwm_ops;
>> > >> >  	imx->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
>> > >> >  	imx->chip.base = -1;
>> > >> >  	imx->chip.npwm = 1;
>> > >> >  	imx->chip.can_sleep = true;
>> > >> > +	if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) {
>> > >> > +		dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PWM supports output
>> > >> > inversion\n");
>> > >> > +		imx->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
>> > >> > +		imx->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
>> > >> > +	}
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  	r = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> > >> >  	imx->mmio_base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, r);
>> > >> >  	if (IS_ERR(imx->mmio_base))
>> > >> >  		return PTR_ERR(imx->mmio_base);
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -	data = of_id->data;
>> > >> >  	imx->config = data->config;
>> > >> >  	imx->set_enable = data->set_enable;
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Best regards,
>> > >
>> > > Łukasz Majewski
>>

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list