Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement the pwm_chip

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Thu 17 Jun 01:24 CDT 2021, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:

> Hello Bjorn,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:22:17PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > +static int ti_sn_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > +			   const struct pwm_state *state)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = pwm_chip_to_ti_sn_bridge(chip);
> > > > +	unsigned int pwm_en_inv;
> > > > +	unsigned int backlight;
> > > > +	unsigned int pre_div;
> > > > +	unsigned int scale;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!pdata->pwm_enabled) {
> > > > +		ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pdata->dev);
> > > > +		if (ret < 0)
> > > > +			return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +		ret = regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_GPIO_CTRL_REG,
> > > > +				SN_GPIO_MUX_MASK << (2 * SN_PWM_GPIO_IDX),
> > > > +				SN_GPIO_MUX_SPECIAL << (2 * SN_PWM_GPIO_IDX));
> > > > +		if (ret) {
> > > > +			dev_err(pdata->dev, "failed to mux in PWM function\n");
> > > > +			goto out;
> > > > +		}
> > > 
> > > Do you need to do this even if state->enabled is false?
> > 
> > I presume I should be able to explicitly mux in the GPIO function and
> > configure that to output low. But I am not able to find anything in the
> > data sheet that would indicate this to be preferred.
> 
> My question targetted a different case. If the PWM is off
> (!pdata->pwm_enabled) and should remain off (state->enabled is false)
> you can shortcut here, can you not?
> 

Right, if we're going off->off then we don't need to touch the hardware.

But am I expected to -EINVAL improper period and duty cycle even though
enabled is false?


And also, what is the supposed behavior of enabled = false? Is it
supposedly equivalent of asking for a duty_cycle of 0?

> > > Does this already modify the output pin?
> > 
> > Yes, coming out of reset this pin is configured as input, so switching
> > the mux here will effectively start driving the pin.
> 
> So please document this in the format the recently added drivers do,
> too. See e.g. drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c. (The idea is to start that with
> " * Limitations:" to make it easy to grep it.)
> 

Okay, will do. Although I believe that for this driver it makes sense to
place such comment close to this function, rather than at the top of the
driver.

> > > Lets continue the above example with the fixed calculation. So we have:
> > > 
> > > 	pdata->pwm_refclk_freq = 3333334
> > > 	state->period = 100000 [ns]
> > > 	state->duty_cycle = 600
> > > 	scale = 332
> > > 
> > > so the actually emitted period = 99899.98002000399 ns
> > > 
> > > Now you calculate:
> > > 
> > > 	backlight = 1
> > > 
> > > which yields an actual duty_cycle of 299.99994 ns, with backlight = 2
> > > you would get an actual duty_cycle of 599.99988 ns, which is better. The
> > > culprit here is that you divide by state->period but instead should
> > > divide by the actual period.
> > 
> > What do I do about the case where the actual period is lower than the
> > requested one and thereby the duty cycle becomes larger than the period?
> 
> The general principle is: Pick the biggest possible duty_cycle available
> for the just picked period. So in your example you have to clamp it to
> period (assuming you can, otherwise pick the next lower possible value).
> 

Sounds good.

Thank you,
Bjorn

> Best regards
> Uwe
> 
> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |