Hi All,
Here is v4 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.
Initially the plan was for this series to consist of 2 parts: 1. convert the pwm-crc driver to support the atomic PWM API and 2. convert the i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API.
But during testing I've found a number of bugs in the pwm-lpss and I found that the acpi_lpss code needs some special handling because of some ugliness found in most Cherry Trail DSDTs.
So now this series has grown somewhat large and 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.
In v4 the ACPI patches have been Acked by Rafael and the i915 patches have been acked by Jani. So that just leaves the PWM patches.
Uwe can I get your ok / ack for merging this through the dinq branch once you have acked al the PWM patches ?
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 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
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 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
Regards,
Hans
The DSDTs on most Cherry Trail devices have an ugly clutch where the PWM controller gets poked from the _PS0 method of the graphics-card device:
Local0 = PSAT /* _SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PSAT */ If (((Local0 & 0x03) == 0x03)) { PSAT &= 0xFFFFFFFC Local1 = PSAT /* _SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PSAT */ RSTA = Zero RSTF = Zero RSTA = One RSTF = One PWMB |= 0xC0000000 PWMC = PWMB /* _SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PWMB */ }
Where PSAT is the power-status register of the PWM controller, so if it is in D3 when the GFX0 device's PS0 method runs then it will turn it on and restore the PWM ctrl register value it saved from its PS3 handler. Note not only does it restore it, it ors it with 0xC0000000 turning it on at a time where we may not want it to get turned on at all.
The pwm_get call which the i915 driver does to get a reference to the PWM controller, already adds a device-link making the GFX0 device a consumer of the PWM device. So it should already have been resumed when the above AML runs and the AML should thus not do its undesirable poking of the PWM controller register.
But the PCI core powers on PCI devices in the no-irq resume phase and thus calls the troublesome PS0 method in the no-irq resume phase. Where as LPSS devices by default are resumed in the early resume phase.
This commit sets the resume_from_noirq flag in the bsw_pwm_dev_desc struct, so that Cherry Trail PWM controllers will be resumed in the no-irq phase. Together with the device-link added by the pwm-get this ensures that the PWM controller will be on when the troublesome PS0 method runs, which stops it from poking the PWM controller.
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c index 5e2bfbcf526f..67892fc0b822 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c @@ -257,6 +257,7 @@ static const struct lpss_device_desc bsw_pwm_dev_desc = { .flags = LPSS_SAVE_CTX | LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY, .prv_offset = 0x800, .setup = bsw_pwm_setup, + .resume_from_noirq = true, };
static const struct lpss_device_desc byt_uart_dev_desc = {
The DSDTs on most Cherry Trail devices have an ugly clutch where the PWM controller gets turned off from the _PS3 method of the graphics-card dev:
Method (_PS3, 0, Serialized) // _PS3: Power State 3 { ... PWMB = PWMC /* _SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PWMC */ PSAT |= 0x03 Local0 = PSAT /* _SB_.PCI0.GFX0.PSAT */ ... }
Where PSAT is the power-status register of the PWM controller.
Since the i915 driver will do a pwm_get on the pwm device as it uses it to control the LCD panel backlight, there is a device-link marking the i915 device as a consumer of the pwm device. So that the PWM controller will always be suspended after the i915 driver suspends (which is the right thing to do). This causes the above GFX0 PS3 AML code to run before acpi_lpss.c calls acpi_lpss_save_ctx().
So on these devices the PWM controller will already be off when acpi_lpss_save_ctx() runs. This causes it to read/save all 1-s (0xffffffff) as ctx register values.
When these bogus values get restored on resume the PWM controller actually keeps working, since most bits are reserved, but this does set bit 3 of the LPSS General purpose register, which for the PWM controller has the following function: "This bit is re-used to support 32kHz slow mode. Default is 19.2MHz as PWM source clock".
This causes the clock of the PWM controller to switch from 19.2MHz to 32KHz, which is a slow-down of a factor 600. Surprisingly enough so far there have been few bug reports about this. This is likely because the i915 driver was hardcoding the PWM frequency to 46 KHz, which divided by 600 would result in a PWM frequency of approx. 78 Hz, which mostly still works fine. There are some bug reports about the LCD backlight flickering after suspend/resume which are likely caused by this issue.
But with the upcoming patch-series to finally switch the i915 drivers code for external PWM controllers to use the atomic API and to honor the PWM frequency specified in the video BIOS (VBT), this becomes a much bigger problem. On most cases the VBT specifies either 200 Hz or 20 KHz as PWM frequency, which with the mentioned issue ends up being either 1/3 Hz, where the backlight actually visible blinks on and off every 3s, or in 33 Hz and horrible flickering of the backlight.
There are a number of possible solutions to this problem:
1. Make acpi_lpss_save_ctx() run before GFX0._PS3 Pro: Clean solution from pov of not medling with save/restore ctx code Con: As mentioned the current ordering is the right thing to do Con: Requires assymmetry in at what suspend/resume phase we do the save vs restore, requiring more suspend/resume ordering hacks in already convoluted acpi_lpss.c suspend/resume code. 2. Do some sort of save once mode for the LPSS ctx Pro: Reasonably clean Con: Needs a new LPSS flag + code changes to handle the flag 3. Detect we have failed to save the ctx registers and do not restore them Pro: Not PWM specific, might help with issues on other LPSS devices too Con: If we can get away with not restoring the ctx why bother with it at all? 4. Do not save the ctx for CHT PWM controllers Pro: Clean, as simple as dropping a flag? Con: Not so simple as dropping a flag, needs a new flag to ensure that we still do lpss_deassert_reset() on device activation. 5. Make the pwm-lpss code fixup the LPSS-context registers Pro: Keeps acpi_lpss.c code clean Con: Moves knowledge of LPSS-context into the pwm-lpss.c code
1 and 5 both do not seem to be a desirable way forward.
3 and 4 seem ok, but they both assume that restoring the LPSS-context registers is not necessary. I have done a couple of test and those do show that restoring the LPSS-context indeed does not seem to be necessary on devices using s2idle suspend (and successfully reaching S0i3). But I have no hardware to test deep / S3 suspend. So I'm not sure that not restoring the context is safe.
That leaves solution 2, which is about as simple / clean as 3 and 4, so this commit fixes the described problem by implementing a new LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE flag and setting that for the CHT PWM controllers.
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v2: - Move #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE define to group it with LPSS_SAVE_CTX --- drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c index 67892fc0b822..a8d7d83ac761 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c @@ -67,7 +67,15 @@ ACPI_MODULE_NAME("acpi_lpss"); #define LPSS_CLK_DIVIDER BIT(2) #define LPSS_LTR BIT(3) #define LPSS_SAVE_CTX BIT(4) -#define LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY BIT(5) +/* + * For some devices the DSDT AML code for another device turns off the device + * before our suspend handler runs, causing us to read/save all 1-s (0xffffffff) + * as ctx register values. + * Luckily these devices always use the same ctx register values, so we can + * work around this by saving the ctx registers once on activation. + */ +#define LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE BIT(5) +#define LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY BIT(6)
struct lpss_private_data;
@@ -254,7 +262,7 @@ static const struct lpss_device_desc byt_pwm_dev_desc = { };
static const struct lpss_device_desc bsw_pwm_dev_desc = { - .flags = LPSS_SAVE_CTX | LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY, + .flags = LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE | LPSS_NO_D3_DELAY, .prv_offset = 0x800, .setup = bsw_pwm_setup, .resume_from_noirq = true, @@ -885,9 +893,14 @@ static int acpi_lpss_activate(struct device *dev) * we have to deassert reset line to be sure that ->probe() will * recognize the device. */ - if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & LPSS_SAVE_CTX) + if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & (LPSS_SAVE_CTX | LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE)) lpss_deassert_reset(pdata);
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM + if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE) + acpi_lpss_save_ctx(dev, pdata); +#endif + return 0; }
@@ -1031,7 +1044,7 @@ static int acpi_lpss_resume(struct device *dev)
acpi_lpss_d3_to_d0_delay(pdata);
- if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & LPSS_SAVE_CTX) + if (pdata->dev_desc->flags & (LPSS_SAVE_CTX | LPSS_SAVE_CTX_ONCE)) acpi_lpss_restore_ctx(dev, pdata);
return 0;
According to the data-sheet the way the PWM controller works is that each input clock-cycle the base_unit gets added to a N bit counter and that counter overflowing determines the PWM output frequency.
So assuming e.g. a 16 bit counter this means that if base_unit is set to 1, after 65535 input clock-cycles the counter has been increased from 0 to 65535 and it will overflow on the next cycle, so it will overflow after every 65536 clock cycles and thus the calculations done in pwm_lpss_prepare() should use 65536 and not 65535.
This commit fixes this. Note this also aligns the calculations in pwm_lpss_prepare() with those in pwm_lpss_get_state().
Note this effectively reverts commit 684309e5043e ("pwm: lpss: Avoid potential overflow of base_unit"). The next patch in this series really fixes the potential overflow of the base_unit value.
Fixes: 684309e5043e ("pwm: lpss: Avoid potential overflow of base_unit") Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v3: - Add Fixes tag - Add Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko tag --- drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c index 9d965ffe66d1..43b1fc634af1 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm, * The equation is: * base_unit = round(base_unit_range * freq / c) */ - base_unit_range = BIT(lpwm->info->base_unit_bits) - 1; + base_unit_range = BIT(lpwm->info->base_unit_bits); freq *= base_unit_range;
base_unit = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(freq, c); @@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
orig_ctrl = ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm); ctrl &= ~PWM_ON_TIME_DIV_MASK; - ctrl &= ~(base_unit_range << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT); - base_unit &= base_unit_range; + ctrl &= ~((base_unit_range - 1) << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT); + base_unit &= (base_unit_range - 1); ctrl |= (u32) base_unit << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT; ctrl |= on_time_div;
When the user requests a high enough period ns value, then the calculations in pwm_lpss_prepare() might result in a base_unit value of 0.
But according to the data-sheet the way the PWM controller works is that each input clock-cycle the base_unit gets added to a N bit counter and that counter overflowing determines the PWM output frequency. Adding 0 to the counter is a no-op. The data-sheet even explicitly states that writing 0 to the base_unit bits will result in the PWM outputting a continuous 0 signal.
When the user requestes a low enough period ns value, then the calculations in pwm_lpss_prepare() might result in a base_unit value which is bigger then base_unit_range - 1. Currently the codes for this deals with this by applying a mask:
base_unit &= (base_unit_range - 1);
But this means that we let the value overflow the range, we throw away the higher bits and store whatever value is left in the lower bits into the register leading to a random output frequency, rather then clamping the output frequency to the highest frequency which the hardware can do.
This commit fixes both issues by clamping the base_unit value to be between 1 and (base_unit_range - 1).
Fixes: 684309e5043e ("pwm: lpss: Avoid potential overflow of base_unit") Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v3: - Change upper limit of clamp to (base_unit_range - 1) - Add Fixes tag --- drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c index 43b1fc634af1..80d0f9c64f9d 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm, freq *= base_unit_range;
base_unit = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(freq, c); + /* base_unit must not be 0 and we also want to avoid overflowing it */ + base_unit = clamp_t(unsigned long long, base_unit, 1, + base_unit_range - 1);
on_time_div = 255ULL * duty_ns; do_div(on_time_div, period_ns); @@ -105,7 +108,6 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm, orig_ctrl = ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm); ctrl &= ~PWM_ON_TIME_DIV_MASK; ctrl &= ~((base_unit_range - 1) << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT); - base_unit &= (base_unit_range - 1); ctrl |= (u32) base_unit << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT; ctrl |= on_time_div;
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:14:20PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
And I don't see how you can get duty 100% / 0% (I don't remember which one is equivalent to 0 in base unit) after this change. IIRC the problem here that base unit when non-zero is always being added to the counter and it will trigger the change of output at some point which is not what we want for 100% / 0% cases.
It would be nice to have an example of calculus here.
This commit fixes both issues by clamping the base_unit value to be between 1 and (base_unit_range - 1).
Eventually I sat and wrote all this on paper. I see now that the problem is in out of range of the period. And strongly we should clamp rather period to the supported range, but your solution is an equivalent.
Only question is about the 100% / 0% duty cycle.
A nit: one line.
Hi,
On 7/9/20 2:53 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
The base_unit controls the output frequency, not the duty-cycle. So clamping the base_unit, as calculated from the period here, which also only configures output-frequency does not impact the duty-cycle at all.
note that AFAICT currently no (in kernel) users actually try to set a period value which would hit the clamp, so for existing users the clamp is a no-op. I just added it to this patch-set for correctness sake and because userspace (sysfs interface) users could in theory set out of range values.
As for the duty-cycle thing, first of all let me say that that is a question / issue which is completely orthogonal to this patch, this patch only impacts the period/output frequency NOT the duty-cycle,
With that said, the documentation is not really helpful here, we need to set the on_time_div to 255 to get a duty-cycle close to 0 (and to 0 to get a duty cycle of 100%) but if setting this to 255 gives us a duty-cycle of really really 0%, or just close to 0% is uncleaer.
We could do a separate patch add ing a hack where if the user asks for 0% duty-cycle we program the base_unit to 0, but that seems like a bad idea for 2 reasons:
1. If the user really wants the output to be constantly 0 the user should just disable the pwm
2. New base_unit values are latched and not applied until the counter overflows, with a base_unit of 0 the counter never overflows. I have not tested this but I would not be surprised if after programming a base_unit value of 0, we are unable to ever change the value again through any other means then power-cycling the PWM controller. Even if I could test this on some revisions, we already know that not all revisions work the same wrt the latching. So it is best to just never set base_unit to 0, that is just a recipe asking for trouble.
Right, the advantage of doing the clamping on the register value is that we avoid some tricky math with possible rounding errors and which is different per controller revision because the number of bits in the base unit being different per controller revision.
Only question is about the 100% / 0% duty cycle.
See my answer to that above.
Doesn't fit in 80 chars, I guess we could make this one line now with the new 100 chars limit, but that does make it harder to read for people using standard terminal widths and a terminal based editors. So I would prefer to keep this as is.
Regards,
Hans
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 03:23:13PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Unfortunately the base unit settings affects duty cycle.
Documentation says about integer part and fractional, where integer is 8 bit and this what's being compared to on time divisor. Thus, if on time divisor is 255 and base unit is 1 (in integer part) or 0.25, we can't get 0%. (It looks like if 'on time divisor MOD base unit == 0' we won't get 0%)
It depends on base unit value.
I can't take this as an argument. Disabling PWM is orthogonal to what duty cycle is.
This what doc says about zeros: • Programming either the PWM_base_unit value or the PWM_on_time_divisor to ‘0’ will generate an always zero output.
So, what I'm talking seems about correlation between base unit and on time divisor rather than zeros.
I agree with this patch. Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
...
You can use clamp_val().
Hi,
On 7/9/20 4:21 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Thank you.
I did not know about that, that will work nicely I will switch to clamp_val for the next version. I assume it is ok to keep your Reviewed-by with this very minor change?
Regards,
Hans
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:33:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
On 7/9/20 4:21 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 03:23:13PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
...
Sure.
Before this commit a suspend + resume of the LPSS PWM controller would result in the controller being reset to its defaults of output-freq = clock/256, duty-cycle=100%, until someone changes to the output-freq and/or duty-cycle are made.
This problem has been masked so far because the main consumer (the i915 driver) was always making duty-cycle changes on resume. With the conversion of the i915 driver to the atomic PWM API the driver now only disables/enables the PWM on suspend/resume leaving the output-freq and duty as is, triggering this problem.
The LPSS PWM controller has a mechanism where the ctrl register value and the actual base-unit and on-time-div values used are latched. When software sets the SW_UPDATE bit then at the end of the current PWM cycle, the new values from the ctrl-register will be latched into the actual registers, and the SW_UPDATE bit will be cleared.
The problem is that before this commit our suspend/resume handling consisted of simply saving the PWM ctrl register on suspend and restoring it on resume, without setting the PWM_SW_UPDATE bit. When the controller has lost its state over a suspend/resume and thus has been reset to the defaults, just restoring the register is not enough. We must also set the SW_UPDATE bit to tell the controller to latch the restored values into the actual registers.
Fixing this problem is not as simple as just or-ing in the value which is being restored with SW_UPDATE. If the PWM was enabled before we must write the new settings + PWM_SW_UPDATE before setting PWM_ENABLE. We must also wait for PWM_SW_UPDATE to become 0 again and depending on the model we must do this either before or after the setting of PWM_ENABLE.
All the necessary logic for doing this is already present inside pwm_lpss_apply(), so instead of duplicating this inside the resume handler, this commit makes the resume handler use pwm_lpss_apply() to restore the settings when necessary. This fixes the output-freq and duty-cycle being reset to their defaults on resume.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v3: - 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. --- drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c index 80d0f9c64f9d..4f3d60ce9929 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c @@ -123,25 +123,31 @@ static inline void pwm_lpss_cond_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm, bool cond) pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_ENABLE); }
-static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, - const struct pwm_state *state) +static int __pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + const struct pwm_state *state, bool from_resume) { struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip); int ret;
if (state->enabled) { if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) { - pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev); + if (!from_resume) + pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev); + ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm); if (ret) { - pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); + if (!from_resume) + pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); + return ret; } pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period); pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == false); ret = pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm); if (ret) { - pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); + if (!from_resume) + pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); + return ret; } pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true); @@ -154,12 +160,20 @@ static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, } } else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) { pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE); - pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); + + if (!from_resume) + pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); }
return 0; }
+static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + const struct pwm_state *state) +{ + return __pwm_lpss_apply(chip, pwm, state, false); +} + static void pwm_lpss_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, struct pwm_state *state) { @@ -272,10 +286,40 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_lpss_suspend); int pwm_lpss_resume(struct device *dev) { struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = dev_get_drvdata(dev); - int i; + struct pwm_state saved_state; + struct pwm_device *pwm; + int i, ret; + u32 ctrl;
- for (i = 0; i < lpwm->info->npwm; i++) - writel(lpwm->saved_ctrl[i], lpwm->regs + i * PWM_SIZE + PWM); + for (i = 0; i < lpwm->info->npwm; i++) { + pwm = &lpwm->chip.pwms[i]; + + ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm); + /* If we did not reach S0i3/S3 the controller keeps its state */ + if (ctrl == lpwm->saved_ctrl[i]) + continue; + + /* + * We cannot just blindly restore the old value here. Since we + * are changing the settings we must set SW_UPDATE and if the + * PWM was enabled before we must write the new settings + + * PWM_SW_UPDATE before setting PWM_ENABLE. We must also wait + * for PWM_SW_UPDATE to become 0 again and depending on the + * model we must do this either before or after the setting of + * PWM_ENABLE. + * So instead of reproducing all the code from pwm_apply() here, + * we just reapply the state as stored in pwm->state. + */ + saved_state = pwm->state; + /* + * Update enabled to its actual setting for the + * enabled<->disabled transitions inside apply(). + */ + pwm->state.enabled = !!(ctrl & PWM_ENABLE); + ret = __pwm_lpss_apply(&lpwm->chip, pwm, &saved_state, true); + if (ret) + dev_err(dev, "Error restoring state on resume\n"); + }
return 0; }
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:14:21PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
...
I'm wondering if splitting more will make this look better, like:
... if (from_resume) { ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(...); // whatever name you think suits better } else { pm_runtime_get_sync(...); ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(...); if (ret) pm_runtime_put(...); } ...
Hi,
On 7/9/20 3:36 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
That is a good idea, I like it. We already had multiple pm_runtime_put() calls before for the error handlig and this patch did not make it any better.
So adding a pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper (the name works for) will also cleanup the original code. I will add this helper as a separate preparation patch for this one in v5 of the patch-set.
Regards,
Hans
The datasheet specifies that programming the base_unit part of the ctrl register to 0 results in a contineous low signal.
Adjust the get_state method to reflect this by setting pwm_state.period to 1 and duty_cycle to 0.
Suggested-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v4: - This is a new patch in v4 of this patchset --- drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 16 +++++++++------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c index 4f3d60ce9929..4d4de45cf99b 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c @@ -192,14 +192,16 @@ static void pwm_lpss_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
freq = base_unit * lpwm->info->clk_rate; do_div(freq, base_unit_range); - if (freq == 0) - state->period = NSEC_PER_SEC; - else + if (freq == 0) { + /* In this case the PWM outputs a continous low signal */ + state->period = 1; + state->duty_cycle = 0; + } else { state->period = NSEC_PER_SEC / (unsigned long)freq; - - on_time_div *= state->period; - do_div(on_time_div, 255); - state->duty_cycle = on_time_div; + on_time_div *= state->period; + do_div(on_time_div, 255); + state->duty_cycle = on_time_div; + }
state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; state->enabled = !!(ctrl & PWM_ENABLE);
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:14:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
...
I guess this should be something like half of the range (so base unit calc will give 128). Because with period = 1 (too small) it will give too small base unit (if apply) and as a result we get high frequency pulses.
Hi,
On 7/9/20 4:50 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
You are right, that if after this the user only changes the duty-cycle things will work very poorly, we will end up with a base_unit value of e.g 65535 and then have almost no duty-cycle resolution at all.
How about using a value here which results in a base_unit value of 256 (for 16 bit base-unit registers), that is the highest frequency we can do while still having full duty-cycle resolution and it also is the power-on-reset value, so using a higher period which translates to a base_unit value of 256 (the por calue) seems like a sensible thing to do.
Uwe what do you think about this?
Regards,
Hans
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:47:59PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Is this a problem of the consumer that we don't need to solve? Are there known consumers running into this problem?
pwm_lpss_prepare() is buggy here, a request for a too low period should be refused.
Best regards Uwe
Hi,
On 7/11/20 8:11 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
AFAICT we never ever actually see freq == 0 here, this is just a code-path to avoid a divide by 0 in case we somehow mysteriously do get freq == 0 here.
On boot the PWM controller is either not used and then the default freq = input-clock / 256, or it is used and programmed to same sane value.
pwm_lpss_prepare() is buggy here, a request for a too low period should be refused.
So instead of clamping as is done in an earlier patch, we should return -EINVAL ? Only for too low periods, or also for too high periods ?
I must say this does worry me a bit, the VBT may request 200Hz output frequency and some revisions of the PWM controller can do 283Hz as lowest output freq. ATM we just give the i915 code the 283 Hz if it request 200, that seems more sane then to give it -EINVAL, since -EINVAL would require the i915 driver to know the exact limits of each PWM controller and then to clamp the VBT value before passing it to the PWM driver, that means moving knowledge out of the PWM driver into the i915 code.
I believe that without first amending the PWM API too allow a consumer to query the period min/max values, returning -EINVAL is not the right thing to do here.
Regards,
Hans
While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128, and there are 256 duty-cycle steps.
The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clock-divider setting of 1 means that the PWM output is running at 6 MHZ, if that is true, where do these 256 duty-cycle steps come from?
This would require an internal frequency of 256 * 6 MHz = 1.5 GHz, that seems unlikely for a PMIC which is using a silicon process optimized for power-switching transistors. It is way more likely that there is an 8 bit counter for the duty cycle which acts as an extra fixed divider wrt the PWM output frequency.
The main user of the pwm-crc driver is the i915 GPU driver which uses it for backlight control. Lets compare the PWM register values set by the video-BIOS (the GOP), assuming the extra fixed divider is present versus the PWM frequency specified in the Video-BIOS-Tables:
Device: PWM Hz set by BIOS PWM Hz specified in VBT Asus T100TA 200 200 Asus T100HA 200 200 Lenovo Miix 2 8 23437 20000 Toshiba WT8-A 23437 20000
So as we can see if we assume the extra division by 256 then the register values set by the GOP are an exact match for the VBT values, where as otherwise the values would be of by a factor of 256.
This commit fixes the period / duty_cycle calculations to take the extra division by 256 into account.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v3: - Use NSEC_PER_USEC instead of adding a new (non-sensical) NSEC_PER_MHZ define --- drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c index 272eeb071147..c056eb9b858c 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
#define PWM_MAX_LEVEL 0xFF
-#define PWM_BASE_CLK 6000000 /* 6 MHz */ -#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS 21333 /* 46.875KHz */ +#define PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ 6 /* 6 MHz */ +#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS 5461333 /* 183 Hz */
/** * struct crystalcove_pwm - Crystal Cove PWM controller @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */ crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm); - clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK * period_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC; + clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
The CRC PWM controller has a clock-divider which divides the clock with a value between 1-128. But as can seen from the PWM_DIV_CLK_xxx defines, this range maps to a register value of 0-127.
So after calculating the clock-divider we must subtract 1 to get the register value, unless the requested frequency was so high that the calculation has already resulted in a (rounded) divider value of 0.
Note that before this fix, setting a period of PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS which corresponds to the max. divider value of 128 could have resulted in a bug where the code would use 128 as divider-register value which would have resulted in an actual divider value of 0 (and the enable bit being set). A rounding error stopped this bug from actually happen. This same rounding error means that after the subtraction of 1 it is impossible to set the divider to 128. Also bump PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS by 1 ns to allow setting a divider of 128 (register-value 127).
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v3: - Introduce crc_pwm_calc_clk_div() here instead of later in the patch-set to reduce the amount of churn in the patch-set a bit --- drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 17 ++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c index c056eb9b858c..44ec7d5b63e1 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ #define PWM_MAX_LEVEL 0xFF
#define PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ 6 /* 6 MHz */ -#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS 5461333 /* 183 Hz */ +#define PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS 5461334 /* 183 Hz */
/** * struct crystalcove_pwm - Crystal Cove PWM controller @@ -39,6 +39,18 @@ static inline struct crystalcove_pwm *to_crc_pwm(struct pwm_chip *pc) return container_of(pc, struct crystalcove_pwm, chip); }
+static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns) +{ + int clk_div; + + clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC); + /* clk_div 1 - 128, maps to register values 0-127 */ + if (clk_div > 0) + clk_div--; + + return clk_div; +} + static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm) { struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c); @@ -68,11 +80,10 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm, }
if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) { - int clk_div; + int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns);
/* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */ crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm); - clk_div = PWM_BASE_CLK_MHZ * period_ns / (256 * NSEC_PER_USEC);
regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE);
The pwm-crc code is using 2 different enable bits: 1. bit 7 of the PWM0_CLK_DIV (PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) 2. bit 0 of the BACKLIGHT_EN register
I strongly suspect that the BACKLIGHT_EN register at address 0x51 really controls a separate output-only GPIO which is connected to the LCD panels backlight-enable input. Like how the PANEL_EN register at address 0x52 controls an output-only GPIO which is earmarked for the LCD panel's enable pin. If this is correct then this GPIO should really be added to the gpio-crystalcove.c driver and the PWM driver should stop poking it. But I've been unable to come up with a definitive answer here, so I'm keeping this as is for now.
As the comment in the old code already indicates we must disable the PWM before we can change the clock divider. But the crc_pwm_disable() and crc_pwm_enable() calls the old code make for this only change the BACKLIGHT_EN register; and the value of that register does not matter for changing the period / the divider. What does matter is that the PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE bit must be cleared before a new value can be written.
This commit modifies crc_pwm_config() to clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE instead when changing the period, so that period changes actually work.
Note this fix will cause a significant behavior change on some devices using the CRC PWM output to drive their backlight. Before the PWM would always run with the output frequency configured by the BIOS at boot, now the period time specified by the i915 driver will actually be honored.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 7 ++----- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c index 44ec7d5b63e1..81232da0c767 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c @@ -82,14 +82,11 @@ static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm, if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) { int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns);
- /* changing the clk divisor, need to disable fisrt */ - crc_pwm_disable(c, pwm); + /* changing the clk divisor, clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE first */ + regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0);
regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); - - /* enable back */ - crc_pwm_enable(c, pwm); }
/* change the pwm duty cycle */
The pwm-crc code is using 2 different enable bits: 1. bit 7 of the PWM0_CLK_DIV (PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE) 2. bit 0 of the BACKLIGHT_EN register
So far we've kept the PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE bit set when disabling the PWM, this commit makes crc_pwm_disable() clear it on disable and makes crc_pwm_enable() set it again on re-enable.
Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v3: - Remove paragraph about tri-stating the output from the commit message, we don't have a datasheet so this was just an unfounded guess --- drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c index 81232da0c767..b72008c9b072 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c @@ -54,7 +54,9 @@ static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns) static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm) { struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c); + int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
+ regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1);
return 0; @@ -63,8 +65,10 @@ static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm) static void crc_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm) { struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c); + int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm));
regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0); + regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div); }
static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
Replace the enable, disable and config pwm_ops with an apply op, to support the new atomic PWM API.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v3: - Keep crc_pwm_calc_clk_div() helper to avoid needless churn --- drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c index b72008c9b072..8a7f4707279c 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c @@ -51,59 +51,76 @@ static int crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(int period_ns) return clk_div; }
-static int crc_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm) +static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + const struct pwm_state *state) { - struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c); - int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm)); - - regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); - regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1); - - return 0; -} - -static void crc_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm) -{ - struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c); - int div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(pwm_get_period(pwm)); - - regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0); - regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, div); -} - -static int crc_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm, - int duty_ns, int period_ns) -{ - struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(c); + struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip); struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev; - int level; + int err;
- if (period_ns > PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS) { + if (state->period > PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS) { dev_err(dev, "un-supported period_ns\n"); return -EINVAL; }
- if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != period_ns) { - int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(period_ns); + if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + + if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && !state->enabled) { + err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 0); + if (err) { + dev_err(dev, "Error writing BACKLIGHT_EN %d\n", err); + return err; + } + } + + 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;
+ err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level); + if (err) { + dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", err); + return err; + } + } + + if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && state->enabled && + pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period) { /* changing the clk divisor, clear PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE first */ - regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0); + err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, 0); + if (err) { + dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", err); + return err; + } + }
- regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, - clk_div | PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); + if (pwm_get_period(pwm) != state->period || + pwm_is_enabled(pwm) != state->enabled) { + int clk_div = crc_pwm_calc_clk_div(state->period); + int pwm_output_enable = state->enabled ? PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE : 0; + + err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, + clk_div | pwm_output_enable); + if (err) { + dev_err(dev, "Error writing PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", err); + return err; + } }
- /* change the pwm duty cycle */ - level = duty_ns * PWM_MAX_LEVEL / period_ns; - regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, level); + if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm) && state->enabled) { + err = regmap_write(crc_pwm->regmap, BACKLIGHT_EN, 1); + if (err) { + dev_err(dev, "Error writing BACKLIGHT_EN %d\n", err); + return err; + } + }
return 0; }
static const struct pwm_ops crc_pwm_ops = { - .config = crc_pwm_config, - .enable = crc_pwm_enable, - .disable = crc_pwm_disable, + .apply = crc_pwm_apply, };
static int crystalcove_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
Implement the pwm_ops.get_state() method to complete the support for the new atomic PWM API.
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v4: - Use DIV_ROUND_UP when calculating the period and duty_cycle from the controller's register values
Changes in v3: - Add Andy's Reviewed-by tag - Remove extra whitespace to align some code after assignments (requested by Uwe Kleine-König) --- drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c index 8a7f4707279c..e58b0979d708 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c @@ -119,8 +119,39 @@ static int crc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, return 0; }
+static void crc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, + struct pwm_state *state) +{ + struct crystalcove_pwm *crc_pwm = to_crc_pwm(chip); + struct device *dev = crc_pwm->chip.dev; + unsigned int clk_div, clk_div_reg, duty_cycle_reg; + int error; + + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_CLK_DIV, &clk_div_reg); + if (error) { + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_CLK_DIV %d\n", error); + return; + } + + error = regmap_read(crc_pwm->regmap, PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE, &duty_cycle_reg); + if (error) { + dev_err(dev, "Error reading PWM0_DUTY_CYCLE %d\n", error); + return; + } + + 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->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; + state->enabled = !!(clk_div_reg & PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE); +} + static const struct pwm_ops crc_pwm_ops = { .apply = crc_pwm_apply, + .get_state = crc_pwm_get_state, };
static int crystalcove_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
Factor the code which checks and drm_dbg_kms-s the VBT PWM frequency out of get_backlight_max_vbt().
This is a preparation patch for honering the VBT PWM frequency for devices which use an external PWM controller (devices using pwm_setup_backlight()).
Acked-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c index 3c5056dbf607..8efdd9f08a08 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c @@ -1543,18 +1543,9 @@ static u32 vlv_hz_to_pwm(struct intel_connector *connector, u32 pwm_freq_hz) return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(clock, pwm_freq_hz * mul); }
-static u32 get_backlight_max_vbt(struct intel_connector *connector) +static u16 get_vbt_pwm_freq(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) { - struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(connector->base.dev); - struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel; u16 pwm_freq_hz = dev_priv->vbt.backlight.pwm_freq_hz; - u32 pwm; - - if (!panel->backlight.hz_to_pwm) { - drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, - "backlight frequency conversion not supported\n"); - return 0; - }
if (pwm_freq_hz) { drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, @@ -1567,6 +1558,22 @@ static u32 get_backlight_max_vbt(struct intel_connector *connector) pwm_freq_hz); }
+ return pwm_freq_hz; +} + +static u32 get_backlight_max_vbt(struct intel_connector *connector) +{ + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(connector->base.dev); + struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel; + u16 pwm_freq_hz = get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv); + u32 pwm; + + if (!panel->backlight.hz_to_pwm) { + drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, + "backlight frequency conversion not supported\n"); + return 0; + } + pwm = panel->backlight.hz_to_pwm(connector, pwm_freq_hz); if (!pwm) { drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
So far for devices using an external PWM controller (devices using pwm_setup_backlight()), we have been hardcoding the period-time passed to pwm_config() to 21333 ns.
I suspect this was done because many VBTs set the PWM frequency to 200 which corresponds to a period-time of 5000000 ns, which greatly exceeds the PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS define in the Crystal Cove PMIC PWM driver, which used to be 21333.
This PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS define was actually based on a bug in the PWM driver where its period and duty-cycle times where off by a factor of 256.
Due to this bug the hardcoded CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS value of 21333 would result in the PWM driver using its divider of 128, which would result in a PWM output frequency of 6000000 Hz / 256 / 128 = 183 Hz. So actually pretty close to the default VBT value of 200 Hz.
Now that this bug in the pwm-crc driver is fixed, we can actually use the VBT defined frequency.
This is important because:
a) With the pwm-crc driver fixed it will now translate the hardcoded CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS value of 21333 ns / 46 Khz to a PWM output frequency of 23 KHz (the max it can do).
b) The pwm-lpss driver used on many models has always honored the 21333 ns / 46 Khz request
Some panels do not like such high output frequencies. E.g. on a Terra Pad 1061 tablet, using the LPSS PWM controller, the backlight would go from off to max, when changing the sysfs backlight brightness value from 90-100%, anything under aprox. 90% would turn the backlight fully off.
Honoring the VBT specified PWM frequency will also hopefully fix the various bug reports which we have received about users perceiving the backlight to flicker after a suspend/resume cycle.
Acked-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 19 +++++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h index 2bf3d4cb4ea9..de32f9efb120 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h @@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ struct intel_panel { bool util_pin_active_low; /* bxt+ */ u8 controller; /* bxt+ only */ struct pwm_device *pwm; + int pwm_period_ns;
/* DPCD backlight */ u8 pwmgen_bit_count; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c index 8efdd9f08a08..14e611c92194 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c @@ -40,8 +40,6 @@ #include "intel_dsi_dcs_backlight.h" #include "intel_panel.h"
-#define CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS 21333 - void intel_fixed_panel_mode(const struct drm_display_mode *fixed_mode, struct drm_display_mode *adjusted_mode) @@ -597,7 +595,7 @@ static u32 pwm_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector) int duty_ns;
duty_ns = pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm); - return DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_ns * 100, CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS); + return DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_ns * 100, panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); }
static void lpt_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 level) @@ -671,9 +669,10 @@ static void bxt_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 static void pwm_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 level) { struct intel_panel *panel = &to_intel_connector(conn_state->connector)->panel; - int duty_ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS, 100); + int duty_ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
- pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, duty_ns, CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS); + pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, duty_ns, + panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); }
static void @@ -1917,6 +1916,9 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector, return -ENODEV; }
+ panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns = NSEC_PER_SEC / + get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv); + /* * FIXME: pwm_apply_args() should be removed when switching to * the atomic PWM API. @@ -1926,9 +1928,10 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector, panel->backlight.min = 0; /* 0% */ panel->backlight.max = 100; /* 100% */ level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, 100); - ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS, 100); + ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
- retval = pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, ns, CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS); + retval = pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, ns, + panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); if (retval < 0) { drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "Failed to configure the pwm chip\n"); pwm_put(panel->backlight.pwm); @@ -1937,7 +1940,7 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector, }
level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100, - CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS); + panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); panel->backlight.level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level); panel->backlight.enabled = panel->backlight.level != 0;
So far for devices using an external PWM controller (devices using pwm_setup_backlight()), we have been hardcoding the minimum allowed PWM level to 0. But several of these devices specify a non 0 minimum setting in their VBT.
Change pwm_setup_backlight() to use get_backlight_min_vbt() to get the minimum level.
Acked-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c index 14e611c92194..cb28b9908ca4 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c @@ -1925,8 +1925,8 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector, */ pwm_apply_args(panel->backlight.pwm);
- panel->backlight.min = 0; /* 0% */ panel->backlight.max = 100; /* 100% */ + panel->backlight.min = get_backlight_min_vbt(connector); level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, 100); ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
@@ -1941,8 +1941,9 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100, panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); - panel->backlight.level = - intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level); + level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level); + panel->backlight.level = clamp(level, panel->backlight.min, + panel->backlight.max); panel->backlight.enabled = panel->backlight.level != 0;
drm_info(&dev_priv->drm, "Using %s PWM for LCD backlight control\n",
Now that the PWM drivers which we use have been converted to the atomic PWM API, we can move the i915 panel code over to using the atomic PWM API.
The removes a long standing FIXME and this removes a flicker where the backlight brightness would jump to 100% when i915 loads even if using the fastset path.
Note that this commit also simplifies pwm_disable_backlight(), by dropping the intel_panel_actually_set_backlight(..., 0) call. This call sets the PWM to 0% duty-cycle. I believe that this call was only present as a workaround for a bug in the pwm-crc.c driver where it failed to clear the PWM_OUTPUT_ENABLE bit. This is fixed by an earlier patch in this series.
After the dropping of this workaround, the usleep call, which seems unnecessary to begin with, has no useful effect anymore, so drop that too.
Acked-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Changes in v4: - Add a note to the commit message about the dropping of the intel_panel_actually_set_backlight() and usleep() calls from pwm_disable_backlight() - Use the pwm_set/get_relative_duty_cycle() helpers instead of using DIY code for this --- .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h | 3 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 71 +++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h index de32f9efb120..4bd9981e70a1 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
#include <linux/async.h> #include <linux/i2c.h> +#include <linux/pwm.h> #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
#include <drm/drm_atomic.h> @@ -223,7 +224,7 @@ struct intel_panel { bool util_pin_active_low; /* bxt+ */ u8 controller; /* bxt+ only */ struct pwm_device *pwm; - int pwm_period_ns; + struct pwm_state pwm_state;
/* DPCD backlight */ u8 pwmgen_bit_count; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c index cb28b9908ca4..3d97267c8238 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c @@ -592,10 +592,10 @@ static u32 bxt_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector) static u32 pwm_get_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector) { struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel; - int duty_ns; + struct pwm_state state;
- duty_ns = pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm); - return DIV_ROUND_UP(duty_ns * 100, panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); + pwm_get_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &state); + return pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&state, 100); }
static void lpt_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 level) @@ -669,10 +669,9 @@ static void bxt_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 static void pwm_set_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *conn_state, u32 level) { struct intel_panel *panel = &to_intel_connector(conn_state->connector)->panel; - int duty_ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
- pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, duty_ns, - panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); + pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&panel->backlight.pwm_state, level, 100); + pwm_apply_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &panel->backlight.pwm_state); }
static void @@ -841,10 +840,8 @@ static void pwm_disable_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *old_conn_sta struct intel_connector *connector = to_intel_connector(old_conn_state->connector); struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel;
- /* Disable the backlight */ - intel_panel_actually_set_backlight(old_conn_state, 0); - usleep_range(2000, 3000); - pwm_disable(panel->backlight.pwm); + panel->backlight.pwm_state.enabled = false; + pwm_apply_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &panel->backlight.pwm_state); }
void intel_panel_disable_backlight(const struct drm_connector_state *old_conn_state) @@ -1176,9 +1173,12 @@ static void pwm_enable_backlight(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, { struct intel_connector *connector = to_intel_connector(conn_state->connector); struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel; + int level = panel->backlight.level;
- pwm_enable(panel->backlight.pwm); - intel_panel_actually_set_backlight(conn_state, panel->backlight.level); + level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level); + pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&panel->backlight.pwm_state, level, 100); + panel->backlight.pwm_state.enabled = true; + pwm_apply_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &panel->backlight.pwm_state); }
static void __intel_panel_enable_backlight(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, @@ -1897,8 +1897,7 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector, struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev); struct intel_panel *panel = &connector->panel; const char *desc; - u32 level, ns; - int retval; + u32 level;
/* Get the right PWM chip for DSI backlight according to VBT */ if (dev_priv->vbt.dsi.config->pwm_blc == PPS_BLC_PMIC) { @@ -1916,36 +1915,30 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector, return -ENODEV; }
- panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns = NSEC_PER_SEC / - get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv); - - /* - * FIXME: pwm_apply_args() should be removed when switching to - * the atomic PWM API. - */ - pwm_apply_args(panel->backlight.pwm); - panel->backlight.max = 100; /* 100% */ panel->backlight.min = get_backlight_min_vbt(connector); - level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, 100); - ns = DIV_ROUND_UP(level * panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns, 100);
- retval = pwm_config(panel->backlight.pwm, ns, - panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); - if (retval < 0) { - drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "Failed to configure the pwm chip\n"); - pwm_put(panel->backlight.pwm); - panel->backlight.pwm = NULL; - return retval; + if (pwm_is_enabled(panel->backlight.pwm) && + pwm_get_period(panel->backlight.pwm)) { + /* PWM is already enabled, use existing settings */ + pwm_get_state(panel->backlight.pwm, &panel->backlight.pwm_state); + + level = pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(&panel->backlight.pwm_state, + 100); + level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level); + panel->backlight.level = clamp(level, panel->backlight.min, + panel->backlight.max); + panel->backlight.enabled = true; + + drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, "PWM already enabled at freq %ld, VBT freq %d, level %d\n", + NSEC_PER_SEC / panel->backlight.pwm_state.period, + get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv), level); + } else { + /* Set period from VBT frequency, leave other settings at 0. */ + panel->backlight.pwm_state.period = + NSEC_PER_SEC / get_vbt_pwm_freq(dev_priv); }
- level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100, - panel->backlight.pwm_period_ns); - level = intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level); - panel->backlight.level = clamp(level, panel->backlight.min, - panel->backlight.max); - panel->backlight.enabled = panel->backlight.level != 0; - drm_info(&dev_priv->drm, "Using %s PWM for LCD backlight control\n", desc); return 0;
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:14:32PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Here you introduce a slight difference: pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle uses round-closest while you replace a round-up. Is this relevant?
Similar here: The function used to use round-up but pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle() used round-closest.
What would pwm_is_enabled(panel->backlight.pwm) == true && pwm_get_period(panel->backlight.pwm) == 0 mean? I hope this doesn't happen?!
.period becomes a u64 soon, so be prepared to fixup here.
Best regards Uwe
Hi,
On 7/11/20 8:32 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Yes I'm aware of the change in rounding and I do not believe that it is relevant. One of the advantages of switching to the helpers is not having to worry about the rounding and letting the helpers figure that out :)
Idem.
It shouldn't happen this code uses only 2 PWM controller drivers, pwm-crc and pwm-lpss and the get_state of neither ever sets period tto 0. This check is just here for extra safety, since getting it wrong would lead to a divide by 0. Which I see has been fixed by the helper now (which does its own period==0 check). So I guess I can (and I will) just drop this extra check for the next version.
Regards,
Hans
Hi,
On 7/9/20 4:14 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
The intel_panel.c code deals with 7 different types of PWM controllers which are built into the GPU + support for external PWM controllers through the kernel's PWM subsystem.
pwm_bl will work for the external PWM controller case, but not for the others. On top of that the intel_panel code integrates which the video BIOS, getting things like frequency, minimum value and if the range is inverted (0% duty == backlight brightness max). I'm not even sure if pwm_bl supports all of this, but even if it does the intel_panel code handles this in a unified manner for all supported PWM controllers, including the ones which are an integral part of the GPU.
Regards,
Hans
Hi Hans,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:40:56PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
pwm_bl handles inverted PWM just fine. I'm unsure what "integrates which the video BIOS" means, but I don't see how "handling 7 different types of PWM controllers explicitly and others using the PWM API" can be seen as "unified manner" compared to "provide a pwm driver for whatever might be in the GPU and then use generic code (PWM API, pwm_bl) to drive it".
Maybe I'm not understanding some involved complexity here?
Best regards Uwe
Hi,
On 7/11/20 8:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Integrating with the video BIOS means reading the VBT (Video BIOS Tables) and extracting info about which PWM controller to use, what frequency to program the output at, minimum allowed duty-cycle and if the scale is inverted.
Part of this is historical, the main x86 GPU drivers have always treated backlight control as integral part of the display pipeline and in some cases it really is, e.g. for eDP panels in some cases the backlight is controlled through the DP aux channel, there is no PWM controller (visible to the kernel involved). So the intel_panel.c code really is a backlight-control de-multiplexer, picking the right "plugin" to control the backlight, which may also be the eDP backlight control code. Using a PWM controller supported by the PWM-core/class is just one of the many supported "plugins".
Also the GPU currently is treated as a single device, not as a MFD device, so we cannot have an isolated PWM driver. We could have code inside the GPU driver which exports a PWM-controller to the PWM-core, to then get a reference to the exported PWM-controller but that would be very roundabout.
The devices which are using an external PWM controller are actually the exception here, 99.9% of all devices use the GPU integrated PWM controller.
Anyways changing over the other PWM-like controllers support by the intel-panel code falls way outside of the scope of this patch-set.
Regards,
Hans
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org