| Message ID | 20200717133753.127282-1-hdegoede@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API | expand |
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi All, > > Here is v5 of my patch series converting the i915 driver's code for > controlling the panel's backlight with an external PWM controller to > use the atomic PWM API. See below for the changelog. > > This series consists of 4 parts: > > 1. acpi_lpss fixes workarounds for Cherry Trail DSTD nastiness > 2. various fixes to the pwm-lpss driver > 3. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and > 4. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API > > The involved acpi_lpss and pwm drivers do not see a whole lot of churn, > so the plan is to merge this all through drm-intel-next-queued (dinq) > once all the patches are reviewed / have acks. > > Specifically patches 5-9, 11 still need an Acked- / Reviewed-by > > Andy, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Specifically > patches 5-6 should address your review remarks from v4 of this set > and I've addressed your review remarks on patches 7-9 in v3 already. > A review of patch 11 would also be welcome > > Uwe, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? > > Uwe, may I have your Acked-by for merging this series through the > drm-intel-next-queued branch once all PWM patches have an Acked- or > Reviewed-by ? > > This series has been tested (and re-tested after adding various bug-fixes) > extensively. It has been tested on the following devices: > > -Asus T100TA BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM > -Toshiba WT8-A BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM > -Thundersoft TS178 BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM, inverse PWM > -Asus T100HA CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM > -Terra Pad 1061 BYT + LPSS PWM > -Trekstor Twin 10.1 BYT + LPSS PWM > -Asus T101HA CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM > -GPD Pocket CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM > > Changelog: > Changes in v5: > - Dropped the "pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0" > patch. The base_unit == 0 condition should never happen and sofar it is > unclear what the proper behavior / correct values to store in the > pwm_state should be when this does happen. Since this patch was added as > an extra pwm-lpss fix in v4 of this patch-set and otherwise is orthogonal > to the of this patch-set just drop it (again). > - "[PATCH 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value" > - Use clamp_val(... instead of clam_t(unsigned long long, ... > - "[PATCH 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper" > - This is a new patch in v5 of this patchset > - [PATCH 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume > - Use the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper > > Changes in v4: > - "[PATCH v4 06/16] pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0" > - This is a new patch in v4 of this patchset > - "[PATCH v4 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method" > - Use DIV_ROUND_UP when calculating the period and duty_cycle values > - "[PATCH v4 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller" > - Add a note to the commit message about the changes in pwm_disable_backlight() > - Use the pwm_set/get_relative_duty_cycle() helpers > > Changes in v3: > - "[PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value" > - Use base_unit_range - 1 as maximum value for the clamp() > - "[PATCH v3 05/15] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume" > - 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. > - PATCH v3 6 - 11 pwm-crc changes: > - Various small changes resulting from the reviews by Andy and Uwe, > including some refactoring of the patches to reduce the amount of churn > in the patch-set > > Changes in v2: > - Fix coverletter subject > - Drop accidentally included debugging patch > - "[PATCH v3 02/15] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once ( > - Move #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE define to group it with LPSS_SAVE_CTX Hi Hans, I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain. That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding subsystem trees. Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose that's something I can do as well. Thierry
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:41:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a > bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there > were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're > doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain. Can we postpone a bit? > That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for > patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as > well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all > independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding > subsystem trees. > > Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose > that's something I can do as well.
cHi, On 7/29/20 10:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:41:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a >> bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there >> were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're >> doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain. Thank you for picking up these patches, but ... > Can we postpone a bit? I have to agree with Andy here, as mentioned my plan was to push the entire series through drm-intel-next-queued once the last few PWM patches are reviewed. There are some fixes, to the pwm-crc driver which change behavior in a possibly undesirable way, unless combined with the i915 changes. E.g. there is a fix which makes the pwm-crc driver actually honor the requested output frequency (it was not doing this due to a bug) and before the i915 changes, the i915 driver was hardcoding an output freq, rather then looking at the video-bios-tables as it should. So having just the pwm-crc fix, will change the output frequency which some LCD panels might not like. Note things are probably fine with the hardcoded output freq, but I would like to play it safe here. Also Andy was still reviewing some of the PWM patches, and has requested changes to 1 patch, nothing functional just some code-reshuffling for cleaner code, so we could alternatively fix this up with a follow-up patch. Either way please let us know how you want to proceed. >> That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for >> patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as >> well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all >> independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding >> subsystem trees. >> >> Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose >> that's something I can do as well. drm-intel-next-queued is usually seeing quite a bit of churn, so the i915 patches really should go upstream through that branch. Regards, Hans
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi All, > > Here is v5 of my patch series converting the i915 driver's code for > controlling the panel's backlight with an external PWM controller to > use the atomic PWM API. See below for the changelog. > > This series consists of 4 parts: > > 1. acpi_lpss fixes workarounds for Cherry Trail DSTD nastiness > 2. various fixes to the pwm-lpss driver > 3. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and > 4. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API > > The involved acpi_lpss and pwm drivers do not see a whole lot of churn, > so the plan is to merge this all through drm-intel-next-queued (dinq) > once all the patches are reviewed / have acks. > > Specifically patches 5-9, 11 still need an Acked- / Reviewed-by > > Andy, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Specifically > patches 5-6 should address your review remarks from v4 of this set > and I've addressed your review remarks on patches 7-9 in v3 already. > A review of patch 11 would also be welcome Done. Sorry for a delay. One comment to consider, though. There are three channels in that PWM AFAIU. One of them is backlight control, another one can be attached to haptics. The concern is how this series may (or may not?) affect haptics behaviour. > Uwe, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? > > Uwe, may I have your Acked-by for merging this series through the > drm-intel-next-queued branch once all PWM patches have an Acked- or > Reviewed-by ? > > This series has been tested (and re-tested after adding various bug-fixes) > extensively. It has been tested on the following devices: > > -Asus T100TA BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM > -Toshiba WT8-A BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM > -Thundersoft TS178 BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM, inverse PWM > -Asus T100HA CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM > -Terra Pad 1061 BYT + LPSS PWM > -Trekstor Twin 10.1 BYT + LPSS PWM > -Asus T101HA CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM > -GPD Pocket CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM > > Changelog: > Changes in v5: > - Dropped the "pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0" > patch. The base_unit == 0 condition should never happen and sofar it is > unclear what the proper behavior / correct values to store in the > pwm_state should be when this does happen. Since this patch was added as > an extra pwm-lpss fix in v4 of this patch-set and otherwise is orthogonal > to the of this patch-set just drop it (again). > - "[PATCH 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value" > - Use clamp_val(... instead of clam_t(unsigned long long, ... > - "[PATCH 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper" > - This is a new patch in v5 of this patchset > - [PATCH 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume > - Use the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper > > Changes in v4: > - "[PATCH v4 06/16] pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0" > - This is a new patch in v4 of this patchset > - "[PATCH v4 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method" > - Use DIV_ROUND_UP when calculating the period and duty_cycle values > - "[PATCH v4 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller" > - Add a note to the commit message about the changes in pwm_disable_backlight() > - Use the pwm_set/get_relative_duty_cycle() helpers > > Changes in v3: > - "[PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value" > - Use base_unit_range - 1 as maximum value for the clamp() > - "[PATCH v3 05/15] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume" > - 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. > - PATCH v3 6 - 11 pwm-crc changes: > - Various small changes resulting from the reviews by Andy and Uwe, > including some refactoring of the patches to reduce the amount of churn > in the patch-set > > Changes in v2: > - Fix coverletter subject > - Drop accidentally included debugging patch > - "[PATCH v3 02/15] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once ( > - Move #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE define to group it with LPSS_SAVE_CTX > > Regards, > > Hans >
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:32:28AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > cHi, > > On 7/29/20 10:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:41:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a > > > bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there > > > were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're > > > doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain. > > Thank you for picking up these patches, but ... > > > Can we postpone a bit? > > I have to agree with Andy here, as mentioned my plan was to push the > entire series through drm-intel-next-queued once the last few PWM > patches are reviewed. > > There are some fixes, to the pwm-crc driver which change behavior in > a possibly undesirable way, unless combined with the i915 changes. > > E.g. there is a fix which makes the pwm-crc driver actually honor > the requested output frequency (it was not doing this due to a bug) > and before the i915 changes, the i915 driver was hardcoding an output > freq, rather then looking at the video-bios-tables as it should. > > So having just the pwm-crc fix, will change the output frequency > which some LCD panels might not like. > > Note things are probably fine with the hardcoded output freq, but I > would like to play it safe here. > > Also Andy was still reviewing some of the PWM patches, and has requested > changes to 1 patch, nothing functional just some code-reshuffling for > cleaner code, so we could alternatively fix this up with a follow-up patch. > > Either way please let us know how you want to proceed. Okay, that's fine, I'll drop them again. > > > That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for > > > patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as > > > well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all > > > independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding > > > subsystem trees. > > > > > > Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose > > > that's something I can do as well. > > drm-intel-next-queued is usually seeing quite a bit of churn, so the i915 > patches really should go upstream through that branch. During my build tests I ran into a small issue caused by this series interacting with the conversion of period and duty-cycle to u64 that I've queued for v5.9. This causes a build failure on x86. I have this local diff to fix that: --- >8 --- diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c index 370ab826a20b..92e838797733 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c @@ -76,7 +76,9 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, if (pwm_get_duty_cycle(pwm) != state->duty_cycle || pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) { - int level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / state->period; + u64 level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL; + + do_div(level, state->period); err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level); if (err) { @@ -141,10 +143,9 @@ static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1; - state->period = - DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ); - state->duty_cycle = - DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_cycle_reg * state->period, PWM_MAX_LEVEL); + state->period = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ); + state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period + PWM_MAX_LEVEL - 1; + do_div(state->duty_cycle, PWM_MAX_LEVEL); state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); } --- >8 --- So perhaps you want to integrate that or something equivalent into your series. Also this could result in a tricky dependency between PWM and drm-misc, although if you're targetting drm-misc it's too late for v5.9 anyway. In that case you should be able to rebase your series on v5.9-rc1 when it's out and then you'll get the prerequisite PWM changes for the u64 conversion as part of that. No need to track the dependency explicitly. Thierry
Hi Thierry, On 7/30/20 11:26 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:32:28AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> cHi, >> >> On 7/29/20 10:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:41:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> >>>> I've applied patches 3 through 12 to the PWM tree. I thought it was a >>>> bit odd that only a handful of these patches had been reviewed and there >>>> were no Tested-bys, but I'm going to trust that you know what you're >>>> doing. =) If this breaks things for anyone I'm sure they'll complain. >> >> Thank you for picking up these patches, but ... >> >>> Can we postpone a bit? >> >> I have to agree with Andy here, as mentioned my plan was to push the >> entire series through drm-intel-next-queued once the last few PWM >> patches are reviewed. >> >> There are some fixes, to the pwm-crc driver which change behavior in >> a possibly undesirable way, unless combined with the i915 changes. >> >> E.g. there is a fix which makes the pwm-crc driver actually honor >> the requested output frequency (it was not doing this due to a bug) >> and before the i915 changes, the i915 driver was hardcoding an output >> freq, rather then looking at the video-bios-tables as it should. >> >> So having just the pwm-crc fix, will change the output frequency >> which some LCD panels might not like. >> >> Note things are probably fine with the hardcoded output freq, but I >> would like to play it safe here. >> >> Also Andy was still reviewing some of the PWM patches, and has requested >> changes to 1 patch, nothing functional just some code-reshuffling for >> cleaner code, so we could alternatively fix this up with a follow-up patch. >> >> Either way please let us know how you want to proceed. > > Okay, that's fine, I'll drop them again. Great, thank you. >>>> That said I see that Rafael has acked patches 1-2 and Jani did so for >>>> patches 13-16. I'm not sure if you expect me to pick those patches up as >>>> well. As far as I can tell the ACPI, PWM and DRM parts are all >>>> independent, so these patches could be applied to the corresponding >>>> subsystem trees. >>>> >>>> Anyway, if you want me to pick those all up into the PWM tree, I suppose >>>> that's something I can do as well. >> >> drm-intel-next-queued is usually seeing quite a bit of churn, so the i915 >> patches really should go upstream through that branch. > > During my build tests I ran into a small issue caused by this series > interacting with the conversion of period and duty-cycle to u64 that > I've queued for v5.9. This causes a build failure on x86. > > I have this local diff to fix that: > > --- >8 --- > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > index 370ab826a20b..92e838797733 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c > @@ -76,7 +76,9 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > > if (pwm_get_duty_cycle(pwm) != state->duty_cycle || > pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) { > - int level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / state->period; > + u64 level = state->duty_cycle * PWM_MAX_LEVEL; > + > + do_div(level, state->period); > > err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level); > if (err) { > @@ -141,10 +143,9 @@ static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > > clk_div = (clk_div_reg & ~PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) + 1; > > - state->period = > - DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ); > - state->duty_cycle = > - DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_cycle_reg * state->period, PWM_MAX_LEVEL); > + state->period = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_div * NSEC_PER_USEC * 256, PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ); > + state->duty_cycle = duty_cycle_reg * state->period + PWM_MAX_LEVEL - 1; > + do_div(state->duty_cycle, PWM_MAX_LEVEL); > state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; > state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); > } > --- >8 --- > > So perhaps you want to integrate that or something equivalent into your > series. Ack, thank you for letting me know. > Also this could result in a tricky dependency between PWM and drm-misc, > although if you're targetting drm-misc it's too late for v5.9 anyway. In > that case you should be able to rebase your series on v5.9-rc1 when it's > out and then you'll get the prerequisite PWM changes for the u64 > conversion as part of that. No need to track the dependency explicitly. Right, I agree that this is too late for this cycle, so I will rebase it on top of v5.9-rc1 once that is out, making sure to take the u64 changes into account. As said my plan is to merge this all through the drm tree, the assumption there was that the pwm-crc and pwm-lpss drivers normally do not see a whole lot of chsnges. Rebasing on top of 5.9-rc1 should take care of the u64 changes. So unless there are more pwm-core changes planned for the 5.10 cycle, I would like to queue this in the drm-intel tree for 5.10. By thta time Andy and I should have also wrapped up the review process (it is as good as wrapped up now already). Thierry, is merging these through the drm-intel tree for 5.10 ok with you? And if this is ok with you may I add your Acked-by to the PWM patches to indicate this ? Regards, Hans
Hi, On 7/29/20 12:54 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Here is v5 of my patch series converting the i915 driver's code for >> controlling the panel's backlight with an external PWM controller to >> use the atomic PWM API. See below for the changelog. >> >> This series consists of 4 parts: >> >> 1. acpi_lpss fixes workarounds for Cherry Trail DSTD nastiness >> 2. various fixes to the pwm-lpss driver >> 3. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and >> 4. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API >> >> The involved acpi_lpss and pwm drivers do not see a whole lot of churn, >> so the plan is to merge this all through drm-intel-next-queued (dinq) >> once all the patches are reviewed / have acks. >> >> Specifically patches 5-9, 11 still need an Acked- / Reviewed-by >> >> Andy, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Specifically >> patches 5-6 should address your review remarks from v4 of this set >> and I've addressed your review remarks on patches 7-9 in v3 already. >> A review of patch 11 would also be welcome > > Done. Sorry for a delay. > > One comment to consider, though. There are three channels in that PWM AFAIU. > One of them is backlight control, another one can be attached to haptics. The > concern is how this series may (or may not?) affect haptics behaviour. When you say "in that PWM" do you mean the LPSS one or the CRC one ? The LPSS patches are all fixes, they don't change behavior, so those should be fine for the haptics. The CRC PWM driver patches do make it honor the requested output frequency, where before, because of a bug, it would stick with the out frequency setup by the firmware (or the power-on-reset value if no value is set by the firmware). This fix causing this is very clearly correct, but it could have unexpected side-effects. However I guess that you are talking about the LPSS PWM controllers and there I expect no impact on haptic or other non backlight users from these changes. Regards, Hans
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 7/29/20 12:54 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: ... > > One comment to consider, though. There are three channels in that PWM AFAIU. > > One of them is backlight control, another one can be attached to haptics. The > > concern is how this series may (or may not?) affect haptics behaviour. > > When you say "in that PWM" do you mean the LPSS one or the CRC one ? CRC one. I have read it from PMIC spec, that's why the question. > The CRC PWM driver patches do make it honor the requested output frequency, > where before, because of a bug, it would stick with the out frequency > setup by the firmware (or the power-on-reset value if no value is set > by the firmware). This fix causing this is very clearly correct, but > it could have unexpected side-effects.
Hi, On 8/2/20 1:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> On 7/29/20 12:54 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > ... > >>> One comment to consider, though. There are three channels in that PWM AFAIU. >>> One of them is backlight control, another one can be attached to haptics. The >>> concern is how this series may (or may not?) affect haptics behaviour. >> >> When you say "in that PWM" do you mean the LPSS one or the CRC one ? > > CRC one. I have read it from PMIC spec, that's why the question. Ah I see, well the kernel driver only implements support for 1 PWM output, the one which is used for the backlight brighness control. So this series should not affect haptics behavior, since it looks like the haptic functionality is not supported in the mainline kernel at all. And I'm also not aware of any tablets with a CRC PMIC which have (non working) haptic support. Regards, Hans
Hi All, Here is v5 of my patch series converting the i915 driver's code for controlling the panel's backlight with an external PWM controller to use the atomic PWM API. See below for the changelog. This series consists of 4 parts: 1. acpi_lpss fixes workarounds for Cherry Trail DSTD nastiness 2. various fixes to the pwm-lpss driver 3. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and 4. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API The involved acpi_lpss and pwm drivers do not see a whole lot of churn, so the plan is to merge this all through drm-intel-next-queued (dinq) once all the patches are reviewed / have acks. Specifically patches 5-9, 11 still need an Acked- / Reviewed-by Andy, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Specifically patches 5-6 should address your review remarks from v4 of this set and I've addressed your review remarks on patches 7-9 in v3 already. A review of patch 11 would also be welcome Uwe, can you please take a look at the unreviewed patches? Uwe, may I have your Acked-by for merging this series through the drm-intel-next-queued branch once all PWM patches have an Acked- or Reviewed-by ? This series has been tested (and re-tested after adding various bug-fixes) extensively. It has been tested on the following devices: -Asus T100TA BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM -Toshiba WT8-A BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM -Thundersoft TS178 BYT + CRC-PMIC PWM, inverse PWM -Asus T100HA CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM -Terra Pad 1061 BYT + LPSS PWM -Trekstor Twin 10.1 BYT + LPSS PWM -Asus T101HA CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM -GPD Pocket CHT + CRC-PMIC PWM Changelog: Changes in v5: - Dropped the "pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0" patch. The base_unit == 0 condition should never happen and sofar it is unclear what the proper behavior / correct values to store in the pwm_state should be when this does happen. Since this patch was added as an extra pwm-lpss fix in v4 of this patch-set and otherwise is orthogonal to the of this patch-set just drop it (again). - "[PATCH 04/16] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value" - Use clamp_val(... instead of clam_t(unsigned long long, ... - "[PATCH 05/16] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper" - This is a new patch in v5 of this patchset - [PATCH 06/16] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume - Use the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper Changes in v4: - "[PATCH v4 06/16] pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0" - This is a new patch in v4 of this patchset - "[PATCH v4 12/16] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method" - Use DIV_ROUND_UP when calculating the period and duty_cycle values - "[PATCH v4 16/16] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller" - Add a note to the commit message about the changes in pwm_disable_backlight() - Use the pwm_set/get_relative_duty_cycle() helpers Changes in v3: - "[PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value" - Use base_unit_range - 1 as maximum value for the clamp() - "[PATCH v3 05/15] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume" - 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. - PATCH v3 6 - 11 pwm-crc changes: - Various small changes resulting from the reviews by Andy and Uwe, including some refactoring of the patches to reduce the amount of churn in the patch-set Changes in v2: - Fix coverletter subject - Drop accidentally included debugging patch - "[PATCH v3 02/15] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once ( - Move #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE define to group it with LPSS_SAVE_CTX Regards, Hans