Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Aug 2022 08:56:29 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/8] pwm: dwc: add timer clock | From | Ben Dooks <> |
| |
On 06/08/2022 11:07, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Ben, > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 05:50:31PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: >> Add a configurable clock base rate for the pwm as when being built >> for non-PCI the block may be sourced from an internal clock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@sifive.com> >> --- >> v2: >> - removed the ifdef and merged the other clock patch in here >> --- >> drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c >> index d5f2df6fee62..5c319d0e3d52 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c >> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ >> #include <linux/kernel.h> >> #include <linux/module.h> >> #include <linux/pci.h> >> +#include <linux/clk.h> >> #include <linux/platform_device.h> >> #include <linux/pm_runtime.h> >> #include <linux/pwm.h> >> @@ -35,7 +36,6 @@ >> #define DWC_TIMERS_COMP_VERSION 0xac >> >> #define DWC_TIMERS_TOTAL 8 >> -#define DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS 10 >> >> /* Timer Control Register */ >> #define DWC_TIM_CTRL_EN BIT(0) >> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ struct dwc_pwm_ctx { >> struct dwc_pwm { >> struct pwm_chip chip; >> void __iomem *base; >> + struct clk *clk; >> + unsigned int clk_ns; >> struct dwc_pwm_ctx ctx[DWC_TIMERS_TOTAL]; >> }; >> #define to_dwc_pwm(p) (container_of((p), struct dwc_pwm, chip)) >> @@ -96,13 +98,13 @@ static int __dwc_pwm_configure_timer(struct dwc_pwm *dwc, >> * periods and check are the result within HW limits between 1 and >> * 2^32 periods. >> */ >> - tmp = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->duty_cycle, DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS); >> + tmp = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->duty_cycle, dwc->clk_ns); >> if (tmp < 1 || tmp > (1ULL << 32)) >> return -ERANGE; >> low = tmp - 1; >> >> tmp = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period - state->duty_cycle, >> - DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS); >> + dwc->clk_ns); > > You're loosing precision here as clk_ns is already the result of a > division. We're having > > dwc->clk_ns = 1000000000 / clk_get_rate(dwc->clk); > > from dwc_pwm_plat_probe() (in the platform case). > > Consider clk_rate = 285714285 and state->period - state->duty_cycle = > 300000. Then you get tmp = 100000 while the exact result would be: > > 300000 * 285714285 / 1000000000 = 85714.2855 > > Note that even doing > > dwc->clk_ns = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(1000000000, clk_get_rate(dwc->clk)) > > only somewhat weakens the problem, with the above numbers you then get > 75000. > > Also note that rounding closest is also wrong in the calculation of tmp > because the driver is supposed to implement the biggest period not > bigger than the requested period and for that period implement the > biggest duty cycle not bigger than the requested duty cycle. > > Can the hardware emit 0% relative duty cycle (e.g. by disabling)?
Not sure, we do have an IP build option to look at for 0/100% but this is not enabled for the PCI case.
Given everything else, I would rather fix the division and accuracy issues once we've got the changes under review sorted.
> >> if (tmp < 1 || tmp > (1ULL << 32)) >> return -ERANGE; >> high = tmp - 1; >> @@ -177,12 +179,12 @@ static void dwc_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, >> >> duty = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_LD_CNT(pwm->hwpwm)); >> duty += 1; >> - duty *= DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS; >> + duty *= dwc->clk_ns; >> state->duty_cycle = duty; >> >> period = dwc_pwm_readl(dwc, DWC_TIM_LD_CNT2(pwm->hwpwm)); >> period += 1; >> - period *= DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS; >> + period *= dwc->clk_ns; >> period += duty; >> state->period = period; >> >> @@ -205,6 +207,7 @@ static struct dwc_pwm *dwc_pwm_alloc(struct device *dev) >> if (!dwc) >> return NULL; >> >> + dwc->clk_ns = 10; >> dwc->chip.dev = dev; >> dwc->chip.ops = &dwc_pwm_ops; >> dwc->chip.npwm = DWC_TIMERS_TOTAL; >> @@ -336,6 +339,14 @@ static int dwc_pwm_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(dwc->base), >> "failed to map IO\n"); >> >> + dwc->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "timer"); >> + if (IS_ERR(dwc->clk)) >> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(dwc->clk), >> + "failed to get timer clock\n"); >> + >> + clk_prepare_enable(dwc->clk); > > If you used devm_clk_get_enabled() you wouldn't need to care separately > for enabling. (If you stick to separate calls, please add error checking > for clk_prepare_enable().)
ok, will use.
>> + dwc->clk_ns = 1000000000 / clk_get_rate(dwc->clk); > > s/1000000000/NSEC_PER_SEC/
ok, fixed.
>> + >> ret = pwmchip_add(&dwc->chip); >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> @@ -347,6 +358,7 @@ static int dwc_pwm_plat_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> { >> struct dwc_pwm *dwc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); >> >> + clk_disable_unprepare(dwc->clk); >> pwmchip_remove(&dwc->chip); > > This is wrong, you must not disable the clock before calling > pwmchip_remove() as the PWM is supposed to stay functional until > pwmchip_remove() returns.
I've moved to devm_clk_get_enabled and devm_pwmchip_add()
> >> return 0; >> } >
| |