Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[PATCH 4/4] ARM: dts: Enable pwm backlight on rk3288-EVB

51 views
Skip to first unread message

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:10:02 PM8/18/14
to
The pwm0 is the PWM associated with the LCD backlight. Enable it.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
index 2964370..242e1a9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*/

+#include <dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h>
#include "rk3288.dtsi"

/ {
@@ -17,6 +18,48 @@
reg = <0x0 0x80000000>;
};

+ backlight {
+ compatible = "pwm-backlight";
+ brightness-levels = <
+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
+ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
+ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
+ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
+ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
+ 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
+ 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
+ 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
+ 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
+ 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
+ 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
+ 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103
+ 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111
+ 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
+ 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127
+ 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135
+ 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143
+ 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151
+ 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159
+ 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167
+ 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175
+ 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183
+ 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191
+ 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199
+ 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207
+ 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215
+ 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223
+ 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231
+ 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239
+ 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247
+ 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255>;
+ default-brightness-level = <128>;
+ enable-gpios = <&gpio7 2 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&bl_en>;
+ pwms = <&pwm0 0 1000000 PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED>;
+ };
+
gpio-keys {
compatible = "gpio-keys";
#address-cells = <1>;
@@ -81,6 +124,10 @@
status = "okay";
};

+&pwm0 {
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
&uart0 {
status = "okay";
};
@@ -102,6 +149,12 @@
};

&pinctrl {
+ backlight {
+ bl_en: bl-en {
+ rockchip,pins = <7 2 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_none>;
+ };
+ };
+
buttons {
pwrbtn: pwrbtn {
rockchip,pins = <0 5 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_up>;
--
2.1.0.rc2.206.gedb03e5

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:20:01 PM8/18/14
to
The rk3288 SoC has an option to switch all of the PWMs in the system
between the old IP block and the new IP block. The new IP block is
working and tested and the suggested PWM to use, so setup the SoC to
use it and then we can pretend that the other IP block doesn't exist.

This code could go lots of other places, but we've put it here. Why?
- Pushing it to the bootloader just makes the code harder to update in
the field. If we later find a bug in the new IP block and want to
change our mind about what to use we want it to be easy to update.
- Putting this code in the driver for IP block is a lot of extra work,
device tree bindings, etc. Now that the new IP block is validated
it's likely no future SoCs will need this code. Why pollute the PWM
driver with this? This is an rk3288 thing so it should be in rk3288
code.
- There's a single bit that switches over PWMs, which makes it extra
hard to put this under the PWM device tree nodes.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
index 8ab9e0e..99133b9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
@@ -24,6 +24,24 @@
#include <asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h>
#include "core.h"

+static void __init rk3288_init_machine(void)
+{
+ void *grf = ioremap(0xff770000, 0x10000);
+
+ /* Set pwm_sel to RK design PWM in GRF_SOC_CON2; affects all PWMs */
+ writel(0x00010001, grf + 0x24c);
+
+ iounmap(grf);
+}
+
+static void __init rockchip_init_machine(void)
+{
+ if (of_machine_is_compatible("rockchip,rk3288"))
+ rk3288_init_machine();
+
+ of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
+}
+
static const char * const rockchip_board_dt_compat[] = {
"rockchip,rk2928",
"rockchip,rk3066a",
@@ -34,6 +52,7 @@ static const char * const rockchip_board_dt_compat[] = {
};

DT_MACHINE_START(ROCKCHIP_DT, "Rockchip Cortex-A9 (Device Tree)")
+ .init_machine = rockchip_init_machine,
.l2c_aux_val = 0,
.l2c_aux_mask = ~0,
.dt_compat = rockchip_board_dt_compat,

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:20:02 PM8/18/14
to
This adds the PWM info (other than the VOP PWM) to the main rk3288
dtsi file.

Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <caesa...@rock-chips.com>
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
index 36be7bb..9c9d9c5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
@@ -261,6 +261,50 @@
status = "disabled";
};

+ pwm0: pwm@ff680000 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680000 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm0_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm1: pwm@ff680010 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680010 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm1_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm2: pwm@ff680020 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680020 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm2_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm3: pwm@ff680030 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680030 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <2>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm3_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
pmu: power-management@ff730000 {
compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pmu", "syscon";
reg = <0xff730000 0x100>;
@@ -611,5 +655,29 @@
rockchip,pins = <5 15 3 &pcfg_pull_none>;
};
};
+
+ pwm0 {
+ pwm0_pin: pwm0-pin {
+ rockchip,pins = <7 0 RK_FUNC_1 &pcfg_pull_none>;
+ };
+ };
+
+ pwm1 {
+ pwm1_pin: pwm1-pin {
+ rockchip,pins = <7 1 RK_FUNC_1 &pcfg_pull_none>;
+ };
+ };
+
+ pwm2 {
+ pwm2_pin: pwm2-pin {
+ rockchip,pins = <7 22 RK_FUNC_3 &pcfg_pull_none>;
+ };
+ };
+
+ pwm3 {
+ pwm3_pin: pwm3-pin {
+ rockchip,pins = <7 23 RK_FUNC_3 &pcfg_pull_none>;
+ };
+ };
};
};

Sonny Rao

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:20:02 PM8/18/14
to
Is it worth checking for failure here? Will the system boot without this?

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:20:02 PM8/18/14
to
The rk3288 has the ability to invert the polarity of the PWM. Let's
enable that ability.

To do this we increase the number of pwm_cells to 3 to allow using the
PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED flag. Since the PWM driver on rk3288 is very
new, I thought this was OK.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt | 4 +--
drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
index d47d15a..b8be3d0 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ Required properties:
"rockchip,vop-pwm": found integrated in VOP on RK3288 SoC
- reg: physical base address and length of the controller's registers
- clocks: phandle and clock specifier of the PWM reference clock
- - #pwm-cells: should be 2. See pwm.txt in this directory for a
- description of the cell format.
+ - #pwm-cells: must be 2 (rk2928) or 3 (rk3288). See pwm.txt in this directory
+ for a description of the cell format.

Example:

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index bdd8644..27f20d6 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -24,7 +24,9 @@
#define PWM_ENABLE (1 << 0)
#define PWM_CONTINUOUS (1 << 1)
#define PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE (1 << 3)
+#define PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE (0 << 3)
#define PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE (0 << 4)
+#define PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE (1 << 4)
#define PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT (0 << 5)
#define PWM_LP_DISABLE (0 << 8)

@@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_chip {
struct pwm_chip chip;
struct clk *clk;
const struct rockchip_pwm_data *data;
+ enum pwm_polarity polarity;
void __iomem *base;
};

@@ -45,6 +48,7 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_regs {
struct rockchip_pwm_data {
struct rockchip_pwm_regs regs;
unsigned int prescaler;
+ bool has_invert;

void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable);
};
@@ -74,10 +78,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
{
struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
- PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE |
- PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
+ PWM_CONTINUOUS;
u32 val;

+ if (pc->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
+ enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
+ else
+ enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
+
val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);

if (enable)
@@ -124,6 +132,19 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
return 0;
}

+int rockchip_pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ enum pwm_polarity polarity)
+{
+ struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
+
+ if (!pc->data->has_invert)
+ return -ENOSYS;
+
+ pc->polarity = polarity;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
{
struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
@@ -149,6 +170,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)

static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = {
.config = rockchip_pwm_config,
+ .set_polarity = rockchip_pwm_set_polarity,
.enable = rockchip_pwm_enable,
.disable = rockchip_pwm_disable,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
@@ -173,6 +195,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
.ctrl = 0x0c,
},
.prescaler = 1,
+ .has_invert = 1,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};

@@ -184,6 +207,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
.ctrl = 0x00,
},
.prescaler = 1,
+ .has_invert = 1,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};

@@ -228,6 +252,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
pc->data = id->data;
pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
+ if (pc->data->has_invert) {
+ pc->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
+ pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
+ }
pc->chip.base = -1;
pc->chip.npwm = 1;

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:20:02 PM8/18/14
to
These patches enable the pwm backlight for the rk3288-evb board.
There were tested by watching the backlight grow from off to max with
the following instructions:

cd /sys/class/backlight/backlight*/
for i in $(seq 255); do echo $i > brightness; sleep .01; done

The first patch enables the proper IP. I think it could land in
Heiko's tree.

The second patch switches PWM cells from 2 to 3 on rk3288. I think it
could land in Thierry's tree. With the PWM subsystem as currently
structured, I believe this will break backward compatibility. However
the rk3288 PWM driver was added so recently (and the rk3288 is so new)
that this seems OK. In the worst case if someone yells that they are
broken, I believe we could fix this in Linux by saying that if a PWM
driver specifies 3 cells and the DTS definition of the PWM says 2
cells that we'll just pretend that we have no flags.

The 3rd and 4th patches are DTS ones. They could land in Heiko's tree
after the second patch has landed. They are based atop his current
WIP 3.18 dts tree. Note that instantiating the PWM backlight will
cause the system to hang unless Heiko's (clk: rockchip: protect
critical clocks from getting disabled)
<patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4725391> is landed.

There are no compile time or runtime dependencies between these
patches except that patch #3 needs to come before patch #4. ...and of
course the PWM won't work without all 4 patches.


Doug Anderson (4):
ARM: rockchip: rk3288: Switch to use the proper PWM IP
pwm: rockchip: Allow polarity invert on rk3288
ARM: dts: Add main PWM info to rk3288
ARM: dts: Enable pwm backlight on rk3288-EVB

.../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt | 4 +-
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi | 53 +++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c | 19 ++++++
drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 32 +++++++++-
5 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:30:02 PM8/18/14
to
Sonny,
Yes, the system will boot without it. I can't quite imagine the
ioremap failing, but I can add a test.

-Doug

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:40:02 PM8/18/14
to
The pwm0 is the PWM associated with the LCD backlight. Enable it.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v2: None
+ pinctrl-names = "default";

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:40:02 PM8/18/14
to
This adds the PWM info (other than the VOP PWM) to the main rk3288
dtsi file.

Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <caesa...@rock-chips.com>
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v2: None

arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
index 36be7bb..9c9d9c5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
@@ -261,6 +261,50 @@
status = "disabled";
};

+ pwm0: pwm@ff680000 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680000 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm0_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm1: pwm@ff680010 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680010 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm1_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm2: pwm@ff680020 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680020 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm2_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm3: pwm@ff680030 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680030 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <2>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:40:02 PM8/18/14
to
The rk3288 SoC has an option to switch all of the PWMs in the system
between the old IP block and the new IP block. The new IP block is
working and tested and the suggested PWM to use, so setup the SoC to
use it and then we can pretend that the other IP block doesn't exist.

This code could go lots of other places, but we've put it here. Why?
- Pushing it to the bootloader just makes the code harder to update in
the field. If we later find a bug in the new IP block and want to
change our mind about what to use we want it to be easy to update.
- Putting this code in the driver for IP block is a lot of extra work,
device tree bindings, etc. Now that the new IP block is validated
it's likely no future SoCs will need this code. Why pollute the PWM
driver with this? This is an rk3288 thing so it should be in rk3288
code.
- There's a single bit that switches over PWMs, which makes it extra
hard to put this under the PWM device tree nodes.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v2:
- Check for failed ioremap()

arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
index 8ab9e0e..93c59f6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
@@ -24,6 +24,29 @@
#include <asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h>
#include "core.h"

+static void __init rk3288_init_machine(void)
+{
+ void *grf = ioremap(0xff770000, 0x10000);
+
+ if (!grf) {
+ pr_warn("%s: Couldn't map GRF\n", __func__);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ /* Set pwm_sel to RK design PWM in GRF_SOC_CON2; affects all PWMs */
+ writel(0x00010001, grf + 0x24c);
+
+ iounmap(grf);
+}
+
+static void __init rockchip_init_machine(void)
+{
+ if (of_machine_is_compatible("rockchip,rk3288"))
+ rk3288_init_machine();
+
+ of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
+}
+
static const char * const rockchip_board_dt_compat[] = {
"rockchip,rk2928",
"rockchip,rk3066a",
@@ -34,6 +57,7 @@ static const char * const rockchip_board_dt_compat[] = {
};

DT_MACHINE_START(ROCKCHIP_DT, "Rockchip Cortex-A9 (Device Tree)")
+ .init_machine = rockchip_init_machine,
.l2c_aux_val = 0,
.l2c_aux_mask = ~0,
.dt_compat = rockchip_board_dt_compat,

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:40:03 PM8/18/14
to
The rk3288 has the ability to invert the polarity of the PWM. Let's
enable that ability.

To do this we increase the number of pwm_cells to 3 to allow using the
PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED flag. Since the PWM driver on rk3288 is very
new, I thought this was OK.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v2: None

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 1:40:03 PM8/18/14
to
These patches enable the pwm backlight for the rk3288-evb board.
There were tested by watching the backlight grow from off to max with
the following instructions:

cd /sys/class/backlight/backlight*/
for i in $(seq 255); do echo $i > brightness; sleep .01; done

The first patch enables the proper IP. I think it could land in
Heiko's tree.

The second patch switches PWM cells from 2 to 3 on rk3288. I think it
could land in Thierry's tree. With the PWM subsystem as currently
structured, I believe this will break backward compatibility. However
the rk3288 PWM driver was added so recently (and the rk3288 is so new)
that this seems OK. In the worst case if someone yells that they are
broken, I believe we could fix this in Linux by saying that if a PWM
driver specifies 3 cells and the DTS definition of the PWM says 2
cells that we'll just pretend that we have no flags.

The 3rd and 4th patches are DTS ones. They could land in Heiko's tree
after the second patch has landed. They are based atop his current
WIP 3.18 dts tree. Note that instantiating the PWM backlight will
cause the system to hang unless Heiko's (clk: rockchip: protect
critical clocks from getting disabled)
<patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4725391> is landed.

There are no compile time or runtime dependencies between these
patches except that patch #3 needs to come before patch #4. ...and of
course the PWM won't work without all 4 patches.

Changes in v2:
- Check for failed ioremap()

Doug Anderson (4):
ARM: rockchip: rk3288: Switch to use the proper PWM IP
pwm: rockchip: Allow polarity invert on rk3288
ARM: dts: Add main PWM info to rk3288
ARM: dts: Enable pwm backlight on rk3288-EVB

.../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt | 4 +-
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi | 53 +++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c | 24 ++++++++
drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 32 +++++++++-
5 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 3:20:01 AM8/19/14
to
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:07AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> #define PWM_LP_DISABLE (0 << 8)
>
> @@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_chip {
> struct pwm_chip chip;
> struct clk *clk;
> const struct rockchip_pwm_data *data;
> + enum pwm_polarity polarity;

Why do you need this field? struct pwm_device already has a copy of it.

> @@ -74,10 +78,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
> {
> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> - PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE |
> - PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> + PWM_CONTINUOUS;
> u32 val;
>
> + if (pc->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
> + else
> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;

I have a feeling you're going to answer the above question with: "Because
it's needed here". If so, my reply would be: "Then this function should
take a struct pwm_device instead of struct pwm_chip."

> @@ -173,6 +195,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> .ctrl = 0x0c,
> },
> .prescaler = 1,
> + .has_invert = 1,

Since has_invert is a boolean, the proper value here would be "true".

> @@ -228,6 +252,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> pc->data = id->data;
> pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
> + if (pc->data->has_invert) {
> + pc->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> + pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
> + }
> pc->chip.base = -1;
> pc->chip.npwm = 1;

I suggest to rewrite the above as follows for readability:

pc->data = id->data;
pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
pc->chip.base = -1;
pc->chip.npwm = 1;
+
+ if (pc->data->has_invert) {
+ pc->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
+ pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
+ }

Thierry

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 3:20:01 AM8/19/14
to
This region of memory is part of the "grf" "syscon" device (according to
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi) so the register should be accessed from
that driver. It looks as if no such driver currently exists, but given
the existence of the device tree node it's fair to assume that one will
eventually be merged.

Thierry

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 3:30:01 AM8/19/14
to
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:09AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> The pwm0 is the PWM associated with the LCD backlight. Enable it.

In the subject, s/pwm/PWM/.

>
> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
> index 2964370..242e1a9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> * GNU General Public License for more details.
> */
>
> +#include <dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h>
> #include "rk3288.dtsi"
>
> / {
> @@ -17,6 +18,48 @@
> reg = <0x0 0x80000000>;
> };
>
> + backlight {

Indentation seems to be off here.
And here.

Thierry

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 11:20:03 AM8/19/14
to
Thierry,
The "grf" syscon device is the "general register file". It's a
collection of totally random registers stuffed together in one address
space. Sometimes a single 32-bit register has things you need to
tweak for completely different subsystems.

Most drivers referene the syscon using this in dts:
rockchip,grf = <&grf>;

Then the drivers do:
grf = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(np, "rockchip,grf");


See the Rockchip i2c, pinctrl, or clock drivers for examples.

I could follow the lead of those subsystem and do the same thing, but
I haven't because of the reasons talked about in the patch
description. To summarize: I thought it was cleaner and would have
less baggage to carry to put this code in an rk3288-specific function.


There was no clean place to put rk3288-specific code such that it used
the "syscon" interface like i2c/clk/pinctrl. ...and adding a lot of
infrastructure for something like that seems like a bit too much to
me. As it's written the code will never need to change (the physical
address of GRF and this bit will always be right on rk3288) and
hopefully nobody will need to think about it again. ;)


-Doug

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 12:10:02 PM8/19/14
to
These patches enable the PWM backlight for the rk3288-evb board.
There were tested by watching the backlight grow from off to max with
the following instructions:

cd /sys/class/backlight/backlight*/
for i in $(seq 255); do echo $i > brightness; sleep .01; done

The first patch enables the proper IP. I think it could land in
Heiko's tree.

The second patch switches PWM cells from 2 to 3 on rk3288. I think it
could land in Thierry's tree. With the PWM subsystem as currently
structured, I believe this will break backward compatibility. However
the rk3288 PWM driver was added so recently (and the rk3288 is so new)
that this seems OK. In the worst case if someone yells that they are
broken, I believe we could fix this in Linux by saying that if a PWM
driver specifies 3 cells and the DTS definition of the PWM says 2
cells that we'll just pretend that we have no flags.

The 3rd and 4th patches are DTS ones. They could land in Heiko's tree
after the second patch has landed. They are based atop his current
WIP 3.18 dts tree. Note that instantiating the PWM backlight will
cause the system to hang unless Heiko's (clk: rockchip: protect
critical clocks from getting disabled)
<patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4725391> is landed.

There are no compile time or runtime dependencies between these
patches except that patch #3 needs to come before patch #4. ...and of
course the PWM won't work without all 4 patches.

Changes in v3:
- Don't store a private copy of polarity.
- Use true instead of 1.
- Cleanup init order with "has_invert".
- Fix space to tab in 2 places in DTS.
- Make sure PWM is upper case in prose.

Changes in v2:
- Check for failed ioremap()

Doug Anderson (4):
ARM: rockchip: rk3288: Switch to use the proper PWM IP
pwm: rockchip: Allow polarity invert on rk3288
ARM: dts: Add main PWM info to rk3288
ARM: dts: Enable PWM backlight on rk3288-EVB

.../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt | 4 +-
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi | 53 +++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c | 24 ++++++++
drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 48 ++++++++++++---
5 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--
2.1.0.rc2.206.gedb03e5

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 12:10:02 PM8/19/14
to
Thierry,

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Thierry Reding
<thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:09AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> The pwm0 is the PWM associated with the LCD backlight. Enable it.
>
> In the subject, s/pwm/PWM/.

Done.


>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
>> index 2964370..242e1a9 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>> * GNU General Public License for more details.
>> */
>>
>> +#include <dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h>
>> #include "rk3288.dtsi"
>>
>> / {
>> @@ -17,6 +18,48 @@
>> reg = <0x0 0x80000000>;
>> };
>>
>> + backlight {
>
> Indentation seems to be off here.

Good catch. Done.
Done.

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 12:10:02 PM8/19/14
to
The rk3288 has the ability to invert the polarity of the PWM. Let's
enable that ability.

To do this we increase the number of pwm_cells to 3 to allow using the
PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED flag. Since the PWM driver on rk3288 is very
new, I thought this was OK.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v3:
- Don't store a private copy of polarity.
- Use true instead of 1.
- Cleanup init order with "has_invert".

Changes in v2: None

.../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt | 4 +-
drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
index d47d15a..b8be3d0 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.txt
@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ Required properties:
"rockchip,vop-pwm": found integrated in VOP on RK3288 SoC
- reg: physical base address and length of the controller's registers
- clocks: phandle and clock specifier of the PWM reference clock
- - #pwm-cells: should be 2. See pwm.txt in this directory for a
- description of the cell format.
+ - #pwm-cells: must be 2 (rk2928) or 3 (rk3288). See pwm.txt in this directory
+ for a description of the cell format.

Example:

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index bdd8644..646aed2 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -24,7 +24,9 @@
#define PWM_ENABLE (1 << 0)
#define PWM_CONTINUOUS (1 << 1)
#define PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE (1 << 3)
+#define PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE (0 << 3)
#define PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE (0 << 4)
+#define PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE (1 << 4)
#define PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT (0 << 5)
#define PWM_LP_DISABLE (0 << 8)

@@ -45,8 +47,10 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_regs {
struct rockchip_pwm_data {
struct rockchip_pwm_regs regs;
unsigned int prescaler;
+ bool has_invert;

- void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable);
+ void (*set_enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+ struct pwm_device *pwm, bool enable);
};

static inline struct rockchip_pwm_chip *to_rockchip_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *c)
@@ -54,7 +58,8 @@ static inline struct rockchip_pwm_chip *to_rockchip_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *c)
return container_of(c, struct rockchip_pwm_chip, chip);
}

-static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
+static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+ struct pwm_device *pwm, bool enable)
{
struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
@@ -70,14 +75,19 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
}

-static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
+static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+ struct pwm_device *pwm, bool enable)
{
struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
- PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE |
- PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
+ PWM_CONTINUOUS;
u32 val;

+ if (pwm->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
+ enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
+ else
+ enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
+
val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);

if (enable)
@@ -124,6 +134,23 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
return 0;
}

+int rockchip_pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ enum pwm_polarity polarity)
+{
+ struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
+
+ if (!pc->data->has_invert)
+ return -ENOSYS;
+
+ /*
+ * No action needed here because pwm->polarity will be set by the core
+ * and the core will only change polarity when the PWM is not enabled.
+ * We'll handle things in set_enable().
+ */
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
{
struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
@@ -133,7 +160,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
if (ret)
return ret;

- pc->data->set_enable(chip, true);
+ pc->data->set_enable(chip, pwm, true);

return 0;
}
@@ -142,13 +169,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
{
struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);

- pc->data->set_enable(chip, false);
+ pc->data->set_enable(chip, pwm, false);

clk_disable(pc->clk);
}

static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = {
.config = rockchip_pwm_config,
+ .set_polarity = rockchip_pwm_set_polarity,
.enable = rockchip_pwm_enable,
.disable = rockchip_pwm_disable,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
@@ -173,6 +201,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
.ctrl = 0x0c,
},
.prescaler = 1,
+ .has_invert = true,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};

@@ -184,6 +213,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
.ctrl = 0x00,
},
.prescaler = 1,
+ .has_invert = true,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};

@@ -230,6 +260,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
pc->chip.base = -1;
pc->chip.npwm = 1;
+ if (pc->data->has_invert) {
+ pc->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
+ pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
+ }

ret = pwmchip_add(&pc->chip);
if (ret < 0) {

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 12:10:02 PM8/19/14
to
The rk3288 SoC has an option to switch all of the PWMs in the system
between the old IP block and the new IP block. The new IP block is
working and tested and the suggested PWM to use, so setup the SoC to
use it and then we can pretend that the other IP block doesn't exist.

This code could go lots of other places, but we've put it here. Why?
- Pushing it to the bootloader just makes the code harder to update in
the field. If we later find a bug in the new IP block and want to
change our mind about what to use we want it to be easy to update.
- Putting this code in the driver for IP block is a lot of extra work,
device tree bindings, etc. Now that the new IP block is validated
it's likely no future SoCs will need this code. Why pollute the PWM
driver with this? This is an rk3288 thing so it should be in rk3288
code.
- There's a single bit that switches over PWMs, which makes it extra
hard to put this under the PWM device tree nodes.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v3: None
Changes in v2:
- Check for failed ioremap()

arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
index 8ab9e0e..93c59f6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c
@@ -24,6 +24,29 @@
#include <asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h>
#include "core.h"

+static void __init rk3288_init_machine(void)
+{
+ void *grf = ioremap(0xff770000, 0x10000);

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 12:10:03 PM8/19/14
to
PWM0 is the PWM associated with the LCD backlight. Enable it.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v3:
- Fix space to tab in 2 places in DTS.
- Make sure PWM is upper case in prose.

Changes in v2: None

arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
index 2964370..98b69d0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*/

+#include <dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h>
#include "rk3288.dtsi"

/ {
@@ -17,6 +18,48 @@
reg = <0x0 0x80000000>;
};

+ backlight {
+
gpio-keys {
compatible = "gpio-keys";
#address-cells = <1>;
@@ -81,6 +124,10 @@
status = "okay";
};

+&pwm0 {
+ status = "okay";
+};
+
&uart0 {
status = "okay";
};
@@ -102,6 +149,12 @@
};

&pinctrl {
+ backlight {
+ bl_en: bl-en {
+ rockchip,pins = <7 2 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_none>;
+ };
+ };
+
buttons {
pwrbtn: pwrbtn {
rockchip,pins = <0 5 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_up>;

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 12:10:02 PM8/19/14
to
Thierry

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Thierry Reding
<thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:07AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> [...]
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
>> #define PWM_LP_DISABLE (0 << 8)
>>
>> @@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ struct rockchip_pwm_chip {
>> struct pwm_chip chip;
>> struct clk *clk;
>> const struct rockchip_pwm_data *data;
>> + enum pwm_polarity polarity;
>
> Why do you need this field? struct pwm_device already has a copy of it.

OK, good point.


>> @@ -74,10 +78,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
>> {
>> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>> u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
>> - PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE |
>> - PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
>> + PWM_CONTINUOUS;
>> u32 val;
>>
>> + if (pc->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
>> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
>> + else
>> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
>
> I have a feeling you're going to answer the above question with: "Because
> it's needed here". If so, my reply would be: "Then this function should
> take a struct pwm_device instead of struct pwm_chip."

OK. I've chosen to have it take a pwm_device AND a pwm_chip. It is a
little redundant because a pwm_device has a pointer to its pwm_chip,
but it follows the lead of all of the callbacks in "struct pwm_ops".
If you'd like me to spin it to take only a pwm_device I'm happy to.


>
>> @@ -173,6 +195,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>> .ctrl = 0x0c,
>> },
>> .prescaler = 1,
>> + .has_invert = 1,
>
> Since has_invert is a boolean, the proper value here would be "true".

Done.


>> @@ -228,6 +252,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> pc->data = id->data;
>> pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
>> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
>> + if (pc->data->has_invert) {
>> + pc->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
>> + pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
>> + }
>> pc->chip.base = -1;
>> pc->chip.npwm = 1;
>
> I suggest to rewrite the above as follows for readability:
>
> pc->data = id->data;
> pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
> pc->chip.base = -1;
> pc->chip.npwm = 1;

Done.


> + if (pc->data->has_invert) {
> + pc->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> + pc->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
> + }
>
> Thierry

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 12:10:03 PM8/19/14
to
This adds the PWM info (other than the VOP PWM) to the main rk3288
dtsi file.

Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <caesa...@rock-chips.com>
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v3: None
Changes in v2: None

arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
index 36be7bb..9c9d9c5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi
@@ -261,6 +261,50 @@
status = "disabled";
};

+ pwm0: pwm@ff680000 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680000 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm0_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm1: pwm@ff680010 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680010 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm1_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm2: pwm@ff680020 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680020 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <3>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pwm2_pin>;
+ clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM>;
+ clock-names = "pwm";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ pwm3: pwm@ff680030 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm";
+ reg = <0xff680030 0x10>;
+ #pwm-cells = <2>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";

Caesar Wang

unread,
Aug 19, 2014, 6:20:02 PM8/19/14
to
Hi Doug,

I reviewed it, the change is need.

Reviewed-on: https://github.com/rkchrome/kernel.git
Reviewed-by: Caesar Wang <caesa...@rock-chips.com>

锟斤拷 2014锟斤拷08锟斤拷20锟斤拷 00:07, Doug Anderson 写锟斤拷:
Best regards,
Caesar

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 2:10:02 AM8/20/14
to
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 08:18:54AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Thierry,
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:06AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >> The rk3288 SoC has an option to switch all of the PWMs in the system
> >> between the old IP block and the new IP block. The new IP block is
> >> working and tested and the suggested PWM to use, so setup the SoC to
> >> use it and then we can pretend that the other IP block doesn't exist.

A few more questions as to how this actually works. Does it mean there
are two physically separate blocks (with different physical addresses)
to control the same PWM? And this register simply causes some of the
pins to be routed to one or another? As far as I recall there are a
number of instances of the PWM block, so the above would need to count
for all of them. Or are there separate bits for each of them?

> >> This code could go lots of other places, but we've put it here. Why?
> >> - Pushing it to the bootloader just makes the code harder to update in
> >> the field. If we later find a bug in the new IP block and want to
> >> change our mind about what to use we want it to be easy to update.

Depending on how this muxing works you won't be able to change your mind
anyway. If the IP blocks are different then the device tree will
effectively make the decision for you. So if you really want to be safe
you'd need to have code in the kernel that parses the device tree and
checks that all PWM instances are of the new type, then set this
register accordingly.

Or you don't set the bit from the driver and need to verify that device
tree and syscon match to avoid using the wrong controller.
That's one way to do it. But if it's really just a one-time thing, then
you could easily perform the register write from the syscon driver where
the memory is already parsed from device tree and mapped. That way you
don't have to hardcode the physical address in some other random piece
of code and map the memory again.

> I could follow the lead of those subsystem and do the same thing, but
> I haven't because of the reasons talked about in the patch
> description. To summarize: I thought it was cleaner and would have
> less baggage to carry to put this code in an rk3288-specific function.
>
> There was no clean place to put rk3288-specific code such that it used
> the "syscon" interface like i2c/clk/pinctrl. ...and adding a lot of
> infrastructure for something like that seems like a bit too much to
> me. As it's written the code will never need to change (the physical
> address of GRF and this bit will always be right on rk3288) and
> hopefully nobody will need to think about it again. ;)

I understand that it looks cleaner this way. But it's completely the
wrong way around. We're trying to move code out of arch/arm and into
proper drivers.

Thierry

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 2:10:01 AM8/20/14
to
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:05:20AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:07AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
[...]
> >> @@ -74,10 +78,14 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool enable)
> >> {
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> - PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE |
> >> - PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> + PWM_CONTINUOUS;
> >> u32 val;
> >>
> >> + if (pc->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> >> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_NEGATIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_POSITIVE;
> >> + else
> >> + enable_conf |= PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >
> > I have a feeling you're going to answer the above question with: "Because
> > it's needed here". If so, my reply would be: "Then this function should
> > take a struct pwm_device instead of struct pwm_chip."
>
> OK. I've chosen to have it take a pwm_device AND a pwm_chip. It is a
> little redundant because a pwm_device has a pointer to its pwm_chip,
> but it follows the lead of all of the callbacks in "struct pwm_ops".
> If you'd like me to spin it to take only a pwm_device I'm happy to.

No, that's fine.

Thierry

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 6:10:01 AM8/20/14
to
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:07:54AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> The rk3288 has the ability to invert the polarity of the PWM. Let's
> enable that ability.
>
> To do this we increase the number of pwm_cells to 3 to allow using the
> PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED flag. Since the PWM driver on rk3288 is very
> new, I thought this was OK.

I don't see any files in arch/arm/boot/dts using either of the
rockchip,vop-pwm or rockchip,rk3288-pwm compatible strings, so there's
no reason to consider this stable ABI yet. As far as I'm concerned the
last sentence can just as well be dropped.

Besides, patches have been posted to support #pwm-cells = <2> and
#pwm-cells = <3> at the same time which should give you backwards-
compatibility for free.

A couple more comments inline.

> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
[...]
> +int rockchip_pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + enum pwm_polarity polarity)

This should be static.

> +{
> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> +
> + if (!pc->data->has_invert)
> + return -ENOSYS;
> +
> + /*
> + * No action needed here because pwm->polarity will be set by the core
> + * and the core will only change polarity when the PWM is not enabled.
> + * We'll handle things in set_enable().
> + */
> +
> + return 0;
> +}

An alternative here would be to provide a separate pwm_ops with
.set_polarity = NULL for the versions of the IP block that don't support
polarity inversion yet, but this works for me too.

> @@ -173,6 +201,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> .ctrl = 0x0c,
> },
> .prescaler = 1,
> + .has_invert = true,
> .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> };
>
> @@ -184,6 +213,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> .ctrl = 0x00,
> },
> .prescaler = 1,
> + .has_invert = true,
> .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> };

Can you please add a '.has_invert = false,' line to pwm_data_v1? I know
it's not strictly necessary but I like it when things are explicitly
stated.

>
> @@ -230,6 +260,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
> pc->chip.base = -1;
> pc->chip.npwm = 1;
> + if (pc->data->has_invert) {

There should be a blank line between the above two.

Thierry

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 11:30:04 AM8/20/14
to
Thierry,

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Thierry Reding
<thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 08:18:54AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Thierry,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Thierry Reding
>> <thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:06AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> >> The rk3288 SoC has an option to switch all of the PWMs in the system
>> >> between the old IP block and the new IP block. The new IP block is
>> >> working and tested and the suggested PWM to use, so setup the SoC to
>> >> use it and then we can pretend that the other IP block doesn't exist.
>
> A few more questions as to how this actually works. Does it mean there
> are two physically separate blocks (with different physical addresses)
> to control the same PWM? And this register simply causes some of the
> pins to be routed to one or another? As far as I recall there are a
> number of instances of the PWM block, so the above would need to count
> for all of them. Or are there separate bits for each of them?

All I have is the TRM (technical reference manual) which doesn't give
me much more info than I've provided you. But I can answer some of
your questoins:

1. If there are two physically separate blocks then the "old" block is
not documented in my TRM.

1a) It's entirely possible it's located at some memory address that is
marked "Reserved" in the TRM, but I have no idea.

1b) It's entirely possible that the old IP block and the new IP block
are supposed to be "compatible" but that the old block is broken and
thus isn't behaving properly.

1c) It's entirely possible that the old IP block and the new IP block
are located at the same physical addresses but somehow work
differently. If so, the old IP block isn't documented.


2. As per the patch description, there is a single bit that controls
all of the PWMs. My guess is that there's actually a single IP block
that implements all 4 PWMs.


>> >> This code could go lots of other places, but we've put it here. Why?
>> >> - Pushing it to the bootloader just makes the code harder to update in
>> >> the field. If we later find a bug in the new IP block and want to
>> >> change our mind about what to use we want it to be easy to update.
>
> Depending on how this muxing works you won't be able to change your mind
> anyway. If the IP blocks are different then the device tree will
> effectively make the decision for you. So if you really want to be safe
> you'd need to have code in the kernel that parses the device tree and
> checks that all PWM instances are of the new type, then set this
> register accordingly.

Since there is no documentation about how you would instantiate the
"old" type in the TRM and no good reason I can think of why someone
would want to do this, it doesn't seem super fruitful.


> Or you don't set the bit from the driver and need to verify that device
> tree and syscon match to avoid using the wrong controller.

This becomes difficult because there's a single bit that switches all the PWMs.
Well, except that we're using the general "syscon" driver. I could
create a whole new driver that "subclasses" this syscon driver I
suppose.


>> I could follow the lead of those subsystem and do the same thing, but
>> I haven't because of the reasons talked about in the patch
>> description. To summarize: I thought it was cleaner and would have
>> less baggage to carry to put this code in an rk3288-specific function.
>>
>> There was no clean place to put rk3288-specific code such that it used
>> the "syscon" interface like i2c/clk/pinctrl. ...and adding a lot of
>> infrastructure for something like that seems like a bit too much to
>> me. As it's written the code will never need to change (the physical
>> address of GRF and this bit will always be right on rk3288) and
>> hopefully nobody will need to think about it again. ;)
>
> I understand that it looks cleaner this way. But it's completely the
> wrong way around. We're trying to move code out of arch/arm and into
> proper drivers.

Yup, I understand that. I did ask for some advice before posting this
and I got the impression that folks thought that it would be fine to
put it here, though. I will let those folks clarify their thoughts
and/or correct my understanding.

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 11:40:02 AM8/20/14
to
Looking at the register offsets in the device tree that seems likely. At
least PWMs 0 and 1 as well as 2 and 3 seem like they could be in the
same IP block. Their placement in the register map is somewhat strange:

pwm0: pwm@20030000 {
...
reg = <0x20030000 0x10>;
...
clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM01>;
...
};

pwm1: pwm@20030010 {
...
reg = <0x20030010 0x10>;
...
clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM01>;
...
};

...

pwm2: pwm@20050020 {
...
reg = <0x20050020 0x10>;
...
clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM23>;
...
};

pwm3: pwm@20050030 {
...
reg = <0x20050030 0x10>;
...
clocks = <&cru PCLK_PWM23>;
...
};

The clocks would also indicate that there are actually two blocks. I
seem to remember a discussion about whether to handle them as a single
block or two/four, but I can't seem to find a reference to it. Maybe I'm
confusing it with another driver.

> >> >> This code could go lots of other places, but we've put it here. Why?
> >> >> - Pushing it to the bootloader just makes the code harder to update in
> >> >> the field. If we later find a bug in the new IP block and want to
> >> >> change our mind about what to use we want it to be easy to update.
> >
> > Depending on how this muxing works you won't be able to change your mind
> > anyway. If the IP blocks are different then the device tree will
> > effectively make the decision for you. So if you really want to be safe
> > you'd need to have code in the kernel that parses the device tree and
> > checks that all PWM instances are of the new type, then set this
> > register accordingly.
>
> Since there is no documentation about how you would instantiate the
> "old" type in the TRM and no good reason I can think of why someone
> would want to do this, it doesn't seem super fruitful.

Okay, so if it's not at all documented and never used then yes, we'd
better just ignore it.
Ah, I wasn't aware that there was even something like a generic syscon
driver. But yes, subclassing it sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

> >> I could follow the lead of those subsystem and do the same thing, but
> >> I haven't because of the reasons talked about in the patch
> >> description. To summarize: I thought it was cleaner and would have
> >> less baggage to carry to put this code in an rk3288-specific function.
> >>
> >> There was no clean place to put rk3288-specific code such that it used
> >> the "syscon" interface like i2c/clk/pinctrl. ...and adding a lot of
> >> infrastructure for something like that seems like a bit too much to
> >> me. As it's written the code will never need to change (the physical
> >> address of GRF and this bit will always be right on rk3288) and
> >> hopefully nobody will need to think about it again. ;)
> >
> > I understand that it looks cleaner this way. But it's completely the
> > wrong way around. We're trying to move code out of arch/arm and into
> > proper drivers.
>
> Yup, I understand that. I did ask for some advice before posting this
> and I got the impression that folks thought that it would be fine to
> put it here, though. I will let those folks clarify their thoughts
> and/or correct my understanding.

Sure.

Thierry

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 12:00:03 PM8/20/14
to
Thierry,

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Thierry Reding
Ah, you're looking at "rk3xxx.dtsi". That doesn't apply to rk3288
(the downsides of trying to guess ahead of time what SoC vendors will
name new models).

In rk3288 they have the same clocks. See patch #3 in this series.


> The clocks would also indicate that there are actually two blocks. I
> seem to remember a discussion about whether to handle them as a single
> block or two/four, but I can't seem to find a reference to it. Maybe I'm
> confusing it with another driver.

At this point it seems like the choice has already been made to handle
them as separate PWMs. I can change this choice if you want...


>> >> >> This code could go lots of other places, but we've put it here. Why?
>> >> >> - Pushing it to the bootloader just makes the code harder to update in
>> >> >> the field. If we later find a bug in the new IP block and want to
>> >> >> change our mind about what to use we want it to be easy to update.
>> >
>> > Depending on how this muxing works you won't be able to change your mind
>> > anyway. If the IP blocks are different then the device tree will
>> > effectively make the decision for you. So if you really want to be safe
>> > you'd need to have code in the kernel that parses the device tree and
>> > checks that all PWM instances are of the new type, then set this
>> > register accordingly.
>>
>> Since there is no documentation about how you would instantiate the
>> "old" type in the TRM and no good reason I can think of why someone
>> would want to do this, it doesn't seem super fruitful.
>
> Okay, so if it's not at all documented and never used then yes, we'd
> better just ignore it.

Heiko just pointed me at the base address for the other block.
There's nothing in the rk3288 TRM about it, but we can see the base
address. We could probably guess that it behaves the same as the
older PWM if we need to. I'm still not convinced there's a good
reason for someone to use it.
I will do that if need be, but it's not my favorite. I will let
others chime in.

Heiko Stübner

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 12:30:01 PM8/20/14
to
It did sound like a nice idea at the time to hold the common stuff of
rk3066/rk3188 and all their derivatives and I assumed a SoC that changed
dramatically (including the core) would be called 4xxx or so :-) .
From what I understood the old one was included as a fallback in case some
drastic problem appeared with the newly developed IP. Similarly for the I2C
the rk2928 and before contained the old IP, the rk3xxx SoCs did contain both
old and new i2c IP and now the rk3288 only contains the new one, as the new IP
seems to have proven stable.

So there really is no incentive to use the old one if no drastic issue has
appeared with the new one until now.
I guess personally I like the idea best of just setting the relevant bit in
_probe of the pwm driver, like the i2c driver does:

if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "rockchip,rk3288-pwm") {
/* get regmap and set bit */
}

The downside would be that the bit would be written 4 times, but I guess this
shouldn't matter to much. And I don't think anybody will get the idea of
combining both ip variants in one dts anyway.
And of course in the next SoC the old IP will mostly have gone away and keep
this somewhat close to the driver and not scatter pwm settings into other
kernel parts.

Hacking up the syscon driver feels bad to me, especially as it is meant to be
generic and export such shared registers to other drivers for just these stuff.


Heiko

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 12:30:02 PM8/20/14
to
Heiko,
Yes, I've fallen into the same trap. Now I jump on the bandwagon and
name things arbitrarily by the first machine that had them. It's
confusing, but sorta less confusing too.
I will try to spin this up today.

Heiko Stübner

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 2:10:02 PM8/20/14
to
Am Mittwoch, 20. August 2014, 09:27:02 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> Heiko,
>
the problem was in this case, that there also is rk3066-specific material which
made it all the more difficult.

I guess rk3066-common would have been a possibility but still sounds somewhat
strange, or something else entirely.

I'm not sure but don't think dtsi file-naming counts as API, so we can rename
the rk3xxx.dtsi file if this gets to confusing in the future.


Heiko

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 3:00:02 PM8/20/14
to
Thierry,

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Thierry Reding
<thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:07:54AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> The rk3288 has the ability to invert the polarity of the PWM. Let's
>> enable that ability.
>>
>> To do this we increase the number of pwm_cells to 3 to allow using the
>> PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED flag. Since the PWM driver on rk3288 is very
>> new, I thought this was OK.
>
> I don't see any files in arch/arm/boot/dts using either of the
> rockchip,vop-pwm or rockchip,rk3288-pwm compatible strings, so there's
> no reason to consider this stable ABI yet. As far as I'm concerned the
> last sentence can just as well be dropped.
>
> Besides, patches have been posted to support #pwm-cells = <2> and
> #pwm-cells = <3> at the same time which should give you backwards-
> compatibility for free.

Done. I'm happy that the subsystem is being improved to handle
pwm-cells more dynamically, too! That's a nice improvement.


> A couple more comments inline.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> [...]
>> +int rockchip_pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> + enum pwm_polarity polarity)
>
> This should be static.

Done.


>> +{
>> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>> +
>> + if (!pc->data->has_invert)
>> + return -ENOSYS;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * No action needed here because pwm->polarity will be set by the core
>> + * and the core will only change polarity when the PWM is not enabled.
>> + * We'll handle things in set_enable().
>> + */
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> An alternative here would be to provide a separate pwm_ops with
> .set_polarity = NULL for the versions of the IP block that don't support
> polarity inversion yet, but this works for me too.

Good point. I'll make the change since it paves the way for other
pwm_ops that are different.


>> @@ -173,6 +201,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
>> .ctrl = 0x0c,
>> },
>> .prescaler = 1,
>> + .has_invert = true,
>> .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>> };
>>
>> @@ -184,6 +213,7 @@ static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
>> .ctrl = 0x00,
>> },
>> .prescaler = 1,
>> + .has_invert = true,
>> .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
>> };
>
> Can you please add a '.has_invert = false,' line to pwm_data_v1? I know
> it's not strictly necessary but I like it when things are explicitly
> stated.

No longer relevant with different pwm_ops.


>> @@ -230,6 +260,10 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
>> pc->chip.base = -1;
>> pc->chip.npwm = 1;
>> + if (pc->data->has_invert) {
>
> There should be a blank line between the above two.

Done.

Dmitry Torokhov

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 3:30:01 PM8/20/14
to
On August 20, 2014 1:54:11 PM CDT, Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Thierry Reding
><thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:07:54AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> The rk3288 has the ability to invert
>>> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>>> +
>>> + if (!pc->data->has_invert)
>>> + return -ENOSYS;
>>> +

At the kernel summit hpa also mentioned that ENOSYS should only be used for missing syscalls. Not sure what error code would suit better here though...


Thanks.

--
Dmitry

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 3:40:01 PM8/20/14
to
Dmitry,

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On August 20, 2014 1:54:11 PM CDT, Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Thierry Reding
>><thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:07:54AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>> The rk3288 has the ability to invert
>>>> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!pc->data->has_invert)
>>>> + return -ENOSYS;
>>>> +
>
> At the kernel summit hpa also mentioned that ENOSYS should only be used for missing syscalls. Not sure what error code would suit better here though...

Luckily this code is gone now. See v4 of the series. ;)

-Doug

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 20, 2014, 4:50:02 PM8/20/14
to
Heiko,

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Heiko Stübner <he...@sntech.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 20. August 2014, 09:27:02 schrieb Doug Anderson:
>> Heiko,
>>
Yup. Sorry, didn't mean to bring it up. It's not a huge deal IMHO,
but if you want to submit a patch to rename I'm happy to support it.
Since the dts issues are all around people shipping device tree files
in firmware, I don't think a rename will affect anything...

-Doug

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 2:30:01 AM8/21/14
to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 08:55:09AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Well, looking at patch 3/4 this really does seem to be one single block
providing four PWM channels, so the right thing to do would be to
represent it in one device tree node. But I'll leave it up to Heiko to
decide how he wants to handle this.

One downside of describing it as one device is that it would make the
pinmux handling slightly more difficult, since presumably you'd only
want to apply the pinmux settings when a channel is actually being used.
Currently the pinmux doesn't apply as long as the device remains
disabled in device tree (though enabling it doesn't necessarily mean
that it's being used).

Like I said, it's up to Heiko to decide whether it's worth making this
change (and it'd make sense to apply it to existing DTS files
retroactively) or better to keep what we have.

Thierry

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 2:40:02 AM8/21/14
to
I think using syscon in the first place is bad. In my opinion it would
be far better to export an explicit API from drivers that are currently
"implemented" as syscon. The thing is, nothing about syscon is truly
generic. All it provides is a memory-mapped I/O region and lets drivers
do to that memory region whatever they wants. But ioremap() can be used
for that purpose already. Yet we have infrastructure to prevent drivers
from doing that (request_resource() and friends) because it's usually a
bad idea. All syscon really gives us is a ratified way of doing things
that are otherwise frowned upon.

Thierry

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 2:50:03 AM8/21/14
to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:29:17PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On August 20, 2014 1:54:11 PM CDT, Doug Anderson <dian...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Thierry Reding
> ><thierry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:07:54AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >>> The rk3288 has the ability to invert
> >>> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!pc->data->has_invert)
> >>> + return -ENOSYS;
> >>> +
>
> At the kernel summit hpa also mentioned that ENOSYS should only be
> used for missing syscalls. Not sure what error code would suit better
> here though...

I'd be interested in the rationale why ENOSYS shouldn't be used within
the kernel. As long as it doesn't leak to userspace where it could
possibly confuse applications I don't see any harm in using it.

Thierry

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 11:40:02 AM8/21/14
to
Thierry and Heiko
Please let me know if you'd like me to spin. Otherwise I'll assume
this is OK as is.

-Doug

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 11:40:02 AM8/21/14
to
Thierry,

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Thierry Reding
Agreed that it's a bit awkward, but it's the generally accepted way of
doing things across multiple drivers as far as I can tell...

In exynos we were also doing this. Another alternative (which I saw
used before syscon) was just to list a second address in the "reg =
<>". The second address might only be 4 bytes big if only a single
32-bit register was needed. That started failing because sometimes
two drivers needed to access the same 32-bit register. Added Tomasz
to this thread since I remember him being a fan of solving this with
syscon.


At the moment I'm not planning to spin this patch. If folks come up
with a solution that they definitely like better I'm happy to spin it,
but for now this seems to work and doesn't seem (to me) to be terribly
worse than the alternatives proposed so far.


-Doug

Tomasz Figa

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 11:50:02 AM8/21/14
to
So, in fact, I'm really a fan of the kind of solutions proposed by
Thierry. My idea of handling this kind of integration details is that we
should rather have a PMU driver on Exynos and it should be exporting all
the various functions to configure certain subtle bits without the IP
driver really knowing about SoC specifics. The PMU driver would know
which bits in which registers to set up depending on SoC compatible
string or data in PMU's device tree node.

I've been recommending the use of syscon for this purpose mostly because
few times before I received negative opinions about the idea of private
APIs like this and I simply didn't have time to push for them.

Best regards,
Tomasz

Heiko Stübner

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 12:00:02 PM8/21/14
to
yeah, the pinctrl settings would need to move to the board files, to only set
the pins necessary on the relevant board. But I don't see that as a problem.


> Like I said, it's up to Heiko to decide whether it's worth making this
> change (and it'd make sense to apply it to existing DTS files
> retroactively) or better to keep what we have.

hmm, I guess I don't really have a hard opinion on this. Generally I like the
"right thing" approach, but the current option also looks ok to me.
So I guess I'm not much help in deciding this :-)


Heiko
signature.asc

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 12:50:02 PM8/21/14
to
But that's exactly what I've been saying. I consider it a very bad thing
that this is a generally accepted way. Sure, it's a very easy solution,
but it also means that all the details about how the syscon registers
need to be programmed are moved into drivers. That makes them inherently
non-portable. Consider for example if you have a driver for an IP block
that's used in one device and needs some registers set in a "syscon"
device to work on that device. Now somebody licenses the same IP block
and instantiates it in a completely different design. Now with some luck
it won't need a syscon's help in the second design, so you can make the
syscon optional and ignore it. But what if you need to program some
syscon in the second design as well but it has a different register
layout?

Admittedly this will also be a problem if you have an explicit API, but
then it's still better to create the proper abstraction that can be made
to work on both SoCs, or as in the case of this PWM block you move the
code that needs to be executed only once into the syscon driver where it
belongs. That way the driver becomes completely generic, no need to play
tricks because you (or somebody else for that matter) chose the easy way
out.

> In exynos we were also doing this. Another alternative (which I saw
> used before syscon) was just to list a second address in the "reg =
> <>". The second address might only be 4 bytes big if only a single
> 32-bit register was needed. That started failing because sometimes
> two drivers needed to access the same 32-bit register.

That's /exactly/ what syscon does as well (albeit with a bunch of
overhead).

> At the moment I'm not planning to spin this patch. If folks come up
> with a solution that they definitely like better I'm happy to spin it,
> but for now this seems to work and doesn't seem (to me) to be terribly
> worse than the alternatives proposed so far.

I still think having a separate syscon driver that does this one-time
initialization is the proper thing to do.

Thierry

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 12:50:02 PM8/21/14
to
syscon is in fact not different from a private API. Except that the API
takes the form of arbitrary register accesses.

Thierry

Doug Anderson

unread,
Aug 25, 2014, 7:50:02 PM8/25/14
to
Thierry,

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Thierry Reding
You probably noticed that I reposted my patches without the offending
parts. Maybe we could at least land those while we figure things out?

It turns out that right now "syscon" can't be subclassed. Heiko
pointed me at some WIP patches from Tomasz that allow subclassing of
syscon, but they're not all done yet.

I was doing some thinking about what to do, then. I wondered whether
the right thing to do is not to make a "rk3288 syscon" driver that
configures these bits, but rather to make a "rk3288" driver has access
to the syscon. It could live in drivers/soc/rockchip/rk3288.c and we
could give it a handle to the syscon. It could do the one-time
initialization. It would also be a place to put special rk3288 APIs
in cases where other drivers need similar things.

What do you think?

Thierry Reding

unread,
Aug 26, 2014, 3:40:02 AM8/26/14
to
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 04:40:57PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
[...]
> I was doing some thinking about what to do, then. I wondered whether
> the right thing to do is not to make a "rk3288 syscon" driver that
> configures these bits, but rather to make a "rk3288" driver has access
> to the syscon. It could live in drivers/soc/rockchip/rk3288.c and we
> could give it a handle to the syscon. It could do the one-time
> initialization. It would also be a place to put special rk3288 APIs
> in cases where other drivers need similar things.
>
> What do you think?

Yes, that could work. There have been recent discussions about adding
such machine drivers that match on the top-level compatible string in
the DT.

I still think that subclassing syscon would be the cleanest solution,
though.

Thierry
0 new messages