[PATCH V2] pwm: imx27: workaround of the pwm output bug when decrease the duty cycle
Clark Wang
xiaoning.wang at nxp.com
Mon Dec 20 23:11:15 PST 2021
Hi Uwe,
Thank you very much for your detailed review!
Please find my comment below.
Best Regards,
Clark Wang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de>
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 18:56
> To: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang at nxp.com>
> Cc: thierry.reding at gmail.com; lee.jones at linaro.org; linux-
> pwm at vger.kernel.org; shawnguo at kernel.org; s.hauer at pengutronix.de; linux-
> kernel at vger.kernel.org; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx at nxp.com>;
> kernel at pengutronix.de; festevam at gmail.com; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; Jun Li <jun.li at nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] pwm: imx27: workaround of the pwm output bug when
> decrease the duty cycle
>
> Hello,
>
> [added Jun Li who reviewed the patch to Cc:]
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 03:31:30PM +0800, Clark Wang wrote:
> > This is a limited workaround for the PWM IP issue.
> >
> > Root cause:
> > When the SAR FIFO is empty, the new write value will be directly applied
> > to SAR even the current period is not over.
>
>
> > If the new SAR value is less than the old one, and the counter is
> > greater than the new SAR value, the current period will not filp the
> > level. This will result in a pulse with a duty cycle of 100%.
>
> I read the i.MX25 PWM chapter a few times now, and I played around a
> bit. I could confirm the issue.
[Clark] Yes, this issue is on all platforms which uses this PWM IP.
>
> > Workaround:
> > Add an old value SAR write before updating the new duty cycle to SAR.
> > This will keep the new value is always in a not empty fifo, and can be wait
> > to update after a period finished.
> >
> > Limitation:
> > This workaround can only solve this issue when the PWM period is longer than
> > 2us(or <500KHz).
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jun Li <jun.li at nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang at nxp.com>
> > ---
> > V2:
> > Fix the warnings when built in riscv-gcc, which is reported by kernel test robot
> <lkp at intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c | 67
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > index ea91a2f81a9f..3d9ca60e2baa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > @@ -21,11 +21,13 @@
> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > #include <linux/pwm.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> >
> > #define MX3_PWMCR 0x00 /* PWM Control Register */
> > #define MX3_PWMSR 0x04 /* PWM Status Register */
> > #define MX3_PWMSAR 0x0C /* PWM Sample
> Register */
> > #define MX3_PWMPR 0x10 /* PWM Period Register */
> > +#define MX3_PWMCNR 0x14 /* PWM Counter
> Register */
> >
> > #define MX3_PWMCR_FWM GENMASK(27, 26)
> > #define MX3_PWMCR_STOPEN BIT(25)
> > @@ -91,6 +93,7 @@ struct pwm_imx27_chip {
> > * value to return in that case.
> > */
> > unsigned int duty_cycle;
> > + spinlock_t lock;
> > };
> >
> > #define to_pwm_imx27_chip(chip) container_of(chip, struct
> pwm_imx27_chip, chip)
> > @@ -201,10 +204,10 @@ static void pwm_imx27_wait_fifo_slot(struct
> pwm_chip *chip,
> >
> > sr = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSR);
> > fifoav = FIELD_GET(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV, sr);
> > - if (fifoav == MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV_4WORDS) {
> > + if (fifoav >= MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV_3WORDS) {
> > period_ms = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(pwm_get_period(pwm),
> > NSEC_PER_MSEC);
> > - msleep(period_ms);
> > + msleep(period_ms * (fifoav - 2));
>
> This changes semantic, from "wait for at least one free FIFO slot" to
> "wait for at least two FIFO slots". Maybe a comment would be good? At
> least the comment above the caller of pwm_imx27_wait_fifo_slot() needs
> adaption.
[Clark] OK, I will add a comment here.
The reason for waiting for at least two empty FIFO slots here is to ensure as much as possible that the SAR will not fail because the FIFO is full when writing to the SAR twice.
>
> Also I wonder: If there is only a single free slot, there is no problem,
> is there?
[Clark] In most cases, this situation is fine. As long as the FIFO is not empty when the SAR is updated, this problem will not be triggered.
>
> > sr = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSR);
> > if (fifoav == FIELD_GET(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV, sr))
>
> The error test is wrong then. If fifoav was initially 4 and waiting only
> reduced it to 3, you don't trigger a warning.
[Clark] Yes, Thanks. I will change it to " if (FIELD_GET(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV, sr) < MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV_3WORDS)"
>
> On a side note: pwm_get_period() might return a value that is too big.
> This could be improved using readl_poll_timeout.
[Clark] Yes, this is a good idea! I can change to use readl_poll_timeout to wait fifoav < 3.
>
> > @@ -215,13 +218,15 @@ static void pwm_imx27_wait_fifo_slot(struct
> pwm_chip *chip,
> > static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > const struct pwm_state *state)
> > {
> > - unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale;
> > + unsigned long period_cycles, duty_cycles, prescale, counter_check,
> flags;
> > struct pwm_imx27_chip *imx = to_pwm_imx27_chip(chip);
> > + void __iomem *reg_sar = imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR;
> > + __force u32 sar_last, sar_current;
> > struct pwm_state cstate;
> > unsigned long long c;
> > unsigned long long clkrate;
> > int ret;
> > - u32 cr;
> > + u32 cr, timeout = 1000;
> >
> > pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
> >
> > @@ -262,7 +267,57 @@ static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > pwm_imx27_sw_reset(chip);
> > }
> >
> > - writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
> > + /*
> > + * This is a limited workaround. When the SAR FIFO is empty, the new
> > + * write value will be directly applied to SAR even the current period
> > + * is not over.
>
> When the SAR FIFO is empty, a new SAR value will be applied directly
> instead of waiting for the current period to complete.
>
> is grammatically better (at least with my German sense for English
> grammar) and might be better to understand.
[Clark] OK. My description may be a bit verbose.
>
> > + * If the new SAR value is less than the old one, and the counter is
> > + * greater than the new SAR value, the current period will not filp
>
> s/filp/flip/
>
> > + * the level. This will result in a pulse with a duty cycle of 100%.
> > + * So, writing the current value of the SAR to SAR here before updating
> > + * the new SAR value can avoid this issue.
>
> This can be expressed a bit easier (and more correct) I think:
>
> If the SAR value is decreased over the counter value, there is
> no compare event in the current period resulting in a 100%
> period.
>
> (This is more correct because decreasing the SAR from 200 to 100 if the
> counter is already at 300 doesn't result in the problem.)
[Clark] Thank you for your detailed comments, I will revise it in the next edition.
>
> > + * Add a spin lock and turn off the interrupt to ensure that the
>
> The usual term is "turn off interrupts" because not only the PWM irq is
> disabled, but all are. I wonder if just disabling irqs serves the same
> purpose.
[Clark] Our purpose here is to turn off all interrupts. I will modify the description here.
>
> > + * real-time performance can be guaranteed as much as possible when
>
> Disabling interrupts is never good for real-time performance.
>
> Having said that I think I'd go for a solution without irq disabling.
[Clark]
The two necessary conditions that cause this problem are:
a) SAR FIFO is empty
b) New SAR<CNR<Old SAR
Code in the following "if (duty_cycles <imx->duty_cycle) {}" is to prevent the problem from recurring even if SAR is written twice in the following situations:
1. The pwm period is set at will. Our logic is to directly update the new SAR value when the FIFO is not empty to avoid this issue. But if after we read FIFO == 1, the time to the end of the current cycle is less than the time used by writing to the SAR twice, the second updated SAR value is still equivalent to being written in the empty FIFO. This may cause this issue again.
2. The PWM period is extremely small (such as 2us). When the FIFO itself is empty, if the total time of two SAR writes cannot be guaranteed to be within 2us, then the second updated SAR value is still equivalent to being written in the empty FIFO. Because the first updated SAR value is updated to the on-going SAR register, the SAR FIFO is empty again when write the second SAR value.
So in order to avoid the above two situations, we must ensure that:
a) The total time for writing two SARs is as small as possible.
b) The two SAR writes need to be completed within one PWM cycle.
I did an experiment:
On imx8mp, set the PWM period to 50us.
When spin_lock_irqsave() is not added, a 100% high level period can still be observed with a high probability even write SAR twice.
After spin_lock_irqsave() is added, there is a very small probability that a 100% high level period will appear. (This avoids the second situation described above.)
At the same time, add counter_check to ensure that the end of the current period is greater than 1.5us. Then quickly write the SAR twice. Period greater than 2us can no longer reproduce this problem. (This avoids the first situation described above.)
>From the experimental results, adding spin_lock_irqsave() can effectively guarantee the code running time during the period.
If you have a better way, we can discuss. :)
[Clark]
>
> > + * operating the following operations.
> > + *
> > + * 1. Add a threshold of 1.5us. If the time T between the read current
> > + * count value CNR and the end of the cycle is less than 1.5us, wait
> > + * for T to be longer than 1.5us before updating the SAR register.
> > + * This is to avoid the situation that when the first SAR is written,
> > + * the current cycle just ends and the SAR FIFO that just be written
> > + * is emptied again.
> > + *
> > + * 2. Use __raw_writel() to minimize the interval between two writes to
> > + * the SAR register to increase the fastest pwm frequency supported.
> > + *
> > + * When the PWM period is longer than 2us(or <500KHz), this
> workaround
> > + * can solve this problem.
> > + */
> > + if (duty_cycles < imx->duty_cycle) {
> > + c = clkrate * 1500;
> > + do_div(c, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> > + counter_check = c;
>
> This needs to account for PWMCR.PRESCALER.
[Clark] Yes, will fix it.
>
> > + sar_last = (__force u32) cpu_to_le32(imx->duty_cycle);
> > + sar_current = (__force u32) cpu_to_le32(duty_cycles);
>
> If endianess conversion is necessary, please apply it to the complete
> driver in a separate patch. Doing this only in one place and skipping
> several others is just irritating.
[Clark] Sorry. But the endianess conversion here is the step before the value is actually written into the register in marco writel_relaxed().
#define writel_relaxed(v,c) __raw_writel((__force u32) cpu_to_le32(v),c)
The purpose of doing the endianess conversion here in advance is to ensure that the writing INTERVAL of the next two SAR updates is as short as possible.
__raw_writel(sar_last, reg_sar);
↑ The INTERVAL between these two lines. ↓
__raw_writel(sar_current, reg_sar);
[Clark]
>
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&imx->lock, flags);
> > + if (state->period >= 2000) {
>
> This checks the new period value that doesn't have to do anything with
> the hardware state yet. So this check isn't sensible, is it?
[Clark] No, this check is useful.
Because we add counter_check to ensure that the end of the current period is greater than 1.5us. This workaround can only fix situations when the period is set greater than 1.5us.
If the PWM period set by user is shorter than 1.5us, then the 1.5us counter_check will never be true. This is why this check is added.
A 1.5us period cannot satisfy that the counter_check is greater than 1.5us, so the minimum cycle for solving(to workaround) this problem is extended to 2us.
Because this problem does not happened 100%, and a full-height period in such a short cycle will not cause much impact, in this case, the time to the end of the current period(counter_check) will not be checked. The SAR will be written twice directly.
[Clark]
>
> > + while ((period_cycles -
> > + readl_relaxed(imx->mmio_base +
> MX3_PWMCNR))
> > + < counter_check) {
>
> period_cycles is the new overflow value. If the current overflow value
> is lower, the loop might terminate immediately. If however the current
> overflow value is higher than period_cycles, the subtraction might
> overflow resulting in the check to be true. In both cases there isn't
> any relation to the next overflow event.
[Clark] Using signed numbers here may solve the problem you raised. Thanks.
>
> > + if (!--timeout)
> > + break;
>
> On a fast machine with a long period this might end in a timeout before
> the rollover.
[Clark]
No.
If it is a long period, as long as the absolute time from the end of the current period is greater than 1.5us. The while loop above will finish. Will not cause a timeout.
If the time from the end of the current period is less than 1.5us, after waiting for 1.5us, it will enter the next new long period, which must meet counter_check > 1.5us, and will also finish the while loop.
[Clark]
>
> > + };
> > + }
> > + if (!(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV &
> > + readl_relaxed(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSR)))
> > + __raw_writel(sar_last, reg_sar);
>
> Why not use FIELD_GET for consistency here?
[Clark] In order to ensure that the interval between two SAR writes is as short as possible. This allows this workaround to support shorter PWM period.
>
> > + __raw_writel(sar_current, reg_sar);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&imx->lock, flags);
> > + } else
> > + writel(duty_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSAR);
>
> This violates the coding style. If one branch of an if needs braces, all
> branches should use them.
[Clark] Thanks, will fix it.
>
> > +
> > writel(period_cycles, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMPR);
>
> Changing the period value resets the counter. So to minimize the effect
> of the mitigation (i.e. a busy loop for up to 1.5µs with irqs off) I
> suggest to do the wait and write SAR twice only if period doesn't change
> and SAR is actually decreased over the current counter value.
[Clark] Okay, will add this check.
>
> > /*
> > @@ -323,6 +378,8 @@ static int pwm_imx27_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> > return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(imx->clk_per),
> > "failed to get peripheral clock\n");
> >
> > + spin_lock_init(&imx->lock);
> > + imx->duty_cycle = 0;
>
> duty_cycle is already 0 here, so there is no need to initialize it.
[Clark] Oh, yes. It is a kzalloc above. Will remove it.
Best Regards,
Clark Wang
>
> > imx->chip.ops = &pwm_imx27_ops;
> > imx->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> > imx->chip.npwm = 1;
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 9563 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20211221/476061a4/attachment-0001.p7s>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list