diff mbox series

[v9,06/17] pwm: lpss: Make pwm_lpss_apply() not rely on existing hardware state

Message ID 20200903105114.9969-7-hdegoede@redhat.com
State Superseded
Headers show
Series acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API | expand

Commit Message

Hans de Goede Sept. 3, 2020, 10:51 a.m. UTC
Before this commit pwm_lpss_apply() was making 2 assuming
2 pre-conditions were met by the existing hardware state:

1. That the base-unit and on-time-div read back from the
control register are those actually in use, so that it
can skip setting the update bit if the read-back value
matches the desired values.

2. That the controller is enabled when the cached
pwm_state.enabled says that the controller is enabled.

As the long history of fixes for subtle (often suspend/resume)
lpss-pwm issues shows, this assumptions are not necessary
always true.

1. Specifically is not true on some (*) Cherry Trail devices
with a nasty GFX0._PS3 method which: a. saves the ctrl reg value.
b. sets the base-unit to 0 and writes the update bit to apply/commit
c. restores the original ctrl value without setting the update bit,
so that the 0 base-unit value is still in use.

2. Assumption 2. currently is true, but only because of the code which
saves/restores the state on suspend/resume. By convention restoring the
PWM state should be done by the PWM consumer and the presence of this
code in the pmw-lpss driver is a bug. Therefor the save/restore code will
be dropped in the next patch in this series, after which this assumption
also is no longer true.

This commit changes the pwm_lpss_apply() to make any assumptions about the
state the hardware is in. Instead it makes pwm_lpss_apply() always fully
program the PWM controller, making it much less fragile.

*) Seen on the Acer One 10 S1003, Lenovo Ideapad Miix 310 and 320 models
and various Medion models.

Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 21 +++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Comments

Thierry Reding Sept. 3, 2020, 10:59 a.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Before this commit pwm_lpss_apply() was making 2 assuming
> 2 pre-conditions were met by the existing hardware state:

I think that "making 2" is too much.

> 
> 1. That the base-unit and on-time-div read back from the
> control register are those actually in use, so that it
> can skip setting the update bit if the read-back value
> matches the desired values.
> 
> 2. That the controller is enabled when the cached
> pwm_state.enabled says that the controller is enabled.
> 
> As the long history of fixes for subtle (often suspend/resume)
> lpss-pwm issues shows, this assumptions are not necessary
> always true.
> 
> 1. Specifically is not true on some (*) Cherry Trail devices
> with a nasty GFX0._PS3 method which: a. saves the ctrl reg value.
> b. sets the base-unit to 0 and writes the update bit to apply/commit
> c. restores the original ctrl value without setting the update bit,
> so that the 0 base-unit value is still in use.
> 
> 2. Assumption 2. currently is true, but only because of the code which
> saves/restores the state on suspend/resume. By convention restoring the
> PWM state should be done by the PWM consumer and the presence of this
> code in the pmw-lpss driver is a bug. Therefor the save/restore code will
> be dropped in the next patch in this series, after which this assumption
> also is no longer true.
> 
> This commit changes the pwm_lpss_apply() to make any assumptions about the

Did you mean to say "... to _not_ make any assumptions ..."?

> state the hardware is in. Instead it makes pwm_lpss_apply() always fully
> program the PWM controller, making it much less fragile.
> 
> *) Seen on the Acer One 10 S1003, Lenovo Ideapad Miix 310 and 320 models
> and various Medion models.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 21 +++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Other than the two small nits, this looks much more idiomatic and true
to the atomic API, so:

Acked-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Hans de Goede Sept. 3, 2020, 11:12 a.m. UTC | #2
Hi,

On 9/3/20 12:59 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Before this commit pwm_lpss_apply() was making 2 assuming
>> 2 pre-conditions were met by the existing hardware state:
> 
> I think that "making 2" is too much.

You're right at first the sentence had something about making
2 assumptions, then I added pre-conditions in there for it
to better describe the problem...

>> 1. That the base-unit and on-time-div read back from the
>> control register are those actually in use, so that it
>> can skip setting the update bit if the read-back value
>> matches the desired values.
>>
>> 2. That the controller is enabled when the cached
>> pwm_state.enabled says that the controller is enabled.
>>
>> As the long history of fixes for subtle (often suspend/resume)
>> lpss-pwm issues shows, this assumptions are not necessary
>> always true.
>>
>> 1. Specifically is not true on some (*) Cherry Trail devices
>> with a nasty GFX0._PS3 method which: a. saves the ctrl reg value.
>> b. sets the base-unit to 0 and writes the update bit to apply/commit
>> c. restores the original ctrl value without setting the update bit,
>> so that the 0 base-unit value is still in use.
>>
>> 2. Assumption 2. currently is true, but only because of the code which
>> saves/restores the state on suspend/resume. By convention restoring the
>> PWM state should be done by the PWM consumer and the presence of this
>> code in the pmw-lpss driver is a bug. Therefor the save/restore code will
>> be dropped in the next patch in this series, after which this assumption
>> also is no longer true.
>>
>> This commit changes the pwm_lpss_apply() to make any assumptions about the
> 
> Did you mean to say "... to _not_ make any assumptions ..."?

Yes, oops. That is a small but important difference.

I'll do a v10 with your 2 Acked-by's added and both commit msg issues fixed.

Hopefully that will be the last version.

>> state the hardware is in. Instead it makes pwm_lpss_apply() always fully
>> program the PWM controller, making it much less fragile.
>>
>> *) Seen on the Acer One 10 S1003, Lenovo Ideapad Miix 310 and 320 models
>> and various Medion models.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 21 +++++++++------------
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> Other than the two small nits, this looks much more idiomatic and true
> to the atomic API, so:
> 
> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>

Thank you.

Regards,

Hans
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
index 8a136ba2a583..9c5c7217c9b6 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@  static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	unsigned long long on_time_div;
 	unsigned long c = lpwm->info->clk_rate, base_unit_range;
 	unsigned long long base_unit, freq = NSEC_PER_SEC;
-	u32 orig_ctrl, ctrl;
+	u32 ctrl;
 
 	do_div(freq, period_ns);
 
@@ -104,16 +104,14 @@  static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	do_div(on_time_div, period_ns);
 	on_time_div = 255ULL - on_time_div;
 
-	orig_ctrl = ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm);
+	ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm);
 	ctrl &= ~PWM_ON_TIME_DIV_MASK;
 	ctrl &= ~((base_unit_range - 1) << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT);
 	ctrl |= (u32) base_unit << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT;
 	ctrl |= on_time_div;
 
-	if (orig_ctrl != ctrl) {
-		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, ctrl);
-		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, ctrl | PWM_SW_UPDATE);
-	}
+	pwm_lpss_write(pwm, ctrl);
+	pwm_lpss_write(pwm, ctrl | PWM_SW_UPDATE);
 }
 
 static inline void pwm_lpss_cond_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm, bool cond)
@@ -124,8 +122,7 @@  static inline void pwm_lpss_cond_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm, bool cond)
 
 static int pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm,
 				   struct pwm_device *pwm,
-				   const struct pwm_state *state,
-				   bool enable)
+				   const struct pwm_state *state)
 {
 	int ret;
 
@@ -134,12 +131,12 @@  static int pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm,
 		return ret;
 
 	pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
-	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == false);
+	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == false);
 	ret = pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == true);
+	pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true);
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -152,11 +149,11 @@  static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	if (state->enabled) {
 		if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
 			pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
-			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, true);
+			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state);
 			if (ret)
 				pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
 		} else {
-			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, false);
+			ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state);
 		}
 	} else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
 		pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);