[v2] pwm: samsung: Fix output race on disabling

When disabling the samsung PWM the output state remains at the level it
was in the end of a pwm cycle. In other words, calling pwm_disable when
at 100% duty will keep the output active, while at all other setting the
output will go/stay inactive. On top of that the samsung PWM settings are
double-buffered, which means the new settings only get applied at the
start of a new PWM cycle.

This results in a race if the PWM is at 100% duty and a driver calls:
  pwm_config (pwm, 0, period);
  pwm_disable (pwm);

In this case the PWMs output will unexpectedly stay active, unless a new
PWM cycle happened to start between the register writes in _config and
_disable. As far as i can tell this is a regression introduced by 3bdf878,
before that a call to pwm_config would call pwm_samsung_enable which,
while heavy-handed, made sure the expected settings were live.

To resolve this, while not re-introducing the issues 3bdf878 (flickering
as the PWM got reset while in a PWM cycle). Only force an update of the
settings when at 100% duty, which shouldn't have a noticeable effect on
the output but is enough to ensure the behaviour is as expected on
disable.

Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk>
---
Changes since v1:
  Fix small issues pointed out by Tomasz Figa
  - Correct various coding style issues
  - Read the current value of the tcmp register for comparison rather then
    using a non-trivial comparison to decide whether the current state was
    100% duty
  - Move the code to force manual update out into its own function
  - Clarify the comment indicating why a manual update is sometimes required

 drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

+To Kukjin

Jingoo, Kukjin, could one of you review this patch to ensure it's the
right thing to do on samsung hardware? 

On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 22:41 +0100, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> When disabling the samsung PWM the output state remains at the level it
> was in the end of a pwm cycle. In other words, calling pwm_disable when
> at 100% duty will keep the output active, while at all other setting the
> output will go/stay inactive. On top of that the samsung PWM settings are
> double-buffered, which means the new settings only get applied at the
> start of a new PWM cycle.
> 
> This results in a race if the PWM is at 100% duty and a driver calls:
>   pwm_config (pwm, 0, period);
>   pwm_disable (pwm);
> 
> In this case the PWMs output will unexpectedly stay active, unless a new
> PWM cycle happened to start between the register writes in _config and
> _disable. As far as i can tell this is a regression introduced by 3bdf878,
> before that a call to pwm_config would call pwm_samsung_enable which,
> while heavy-handed, made sure the expected settings were live.
> 
> To resolve this, while not re-introducing the issues 3bdf878 (flickering
> as the PWM got reset while in a PWM cycle). Only force an update of the
> settings when at 100% duty, which shouldn't have a noticeable effect on
> the output but is enough to ensure the behaviour is as expected on
> disable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
>   Fix small issues pointed out by Tomasz Figa
>   - Correct various coding style issues
>   - Read the current value of the tcmp register for comparison rather then
>     using a non-trivial comparison to decide whether the current state was
>     100% duty
>   - Move the code to force manual update out into its own function
>   - Clarify the comment indicating why a manual update is sometimes required
> 
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c
> index 3e9b583..649f6c4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-samsung.c
> @@ -269,12 +269,31 @@ static void pwm_samsung_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags);
>  }
>  
> +static void pwm_samsung_manual_update(struct samsung_pwm_chip *chip,
> +				      struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> +	unsigned int tcon_chan = to_tcon_channel(pwm->hwpwm);
> +	u32 tcon;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags);
> +
> +	tcon = readl(chip->base + REG_TCON);
> +	tcon |= TCON_MANUALUPDATE(tcon_chan);
> +	writel(tcon, chip->base + REG_TCON);
> +
> +	tcon &= ~TCON_MANUALUPDATE(tcon_chan);
> +	writel(tcon, chip->base + REG_TCON);
> +
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
>  static int pwm_samsung_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  			      int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>  {
>  	struct samsung_pwm_chip *our_chip = to_samsung_pwm_chip(chip);
>  	struct samsung_pwm_channel *chan = pwm_get_chip_data(pwm);
> -	u32 tin_ns = chan->tin_ns, tcnt, tcmp;
> +	u32 tin_ns = chan->tin_ns, tcnt, tcmp, oldtcmp;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We currently avoid using 64bit arithmetic by using the
> @@ -288,6 +307,7 @@ static int pwm_samsung_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	tcnt = readl(our_chip->base + REG_TCNTB(pwm->hwpwm));
> +	oldtcmp = readl(our_chip->base + REG_TCMPB(pwm->hwpwm));
>  
>  	/* We need tick count for calculation, not last tick. */
>  	++tcnt;
> @@ -335,6 +355,15 @@ static int pwm_samsung_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  	writel(tcnt, our_chip->base + REG_TCNTB(pwm->hwpwm));
>  	writel(tcmp, our_chip->base + REG_TCMPB(pwm->hwpwm));
>  
> +	/* In case the PWM is currently at 100% duty, force a manual update
> +	 * to prevent the signal staying high in the pwm is disabled shortly
> +	 * afer this update (before it autoreloaded the new values) .
> +	 */
> +	if (oldtcmp == (u32) -1) {
> +		dev_dbg(our_chip->chip.dev, "Forcing manual update");
> +		pwm_samsung_manual_update(our_chip, pwm);
> +	}
> +
>  	chan->period_ns = period_ns;
>  	chan->tin_ns = tin_ns;
>  	chan->duty_ns = duty_ns;