mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-12-03 17:14:14 +08:00
pwm: lpss: Switch to new atomic API
Instead of doing things separately, which is not so reliable on some platforms, switch the driver to use new atomic API, i.e. ->apply() callback. The change has been tested on Intel platforms such as Broxton, BayTrail, and Merrifield. Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
b5c050c719
commit
b14e8ceff0
@ -82,15 +82,20 @@ static inline void pwm_lpss_write(const struct pwm_device *pwm, u32 value)
|
||||
|
||||
static void pwm_lpss_update(struct pwm_device *pwm)
|
||||
{
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Set a limit for busyloop since not all implementations correctly
|
||||
* clear PWM_SW_UPDATE bit (at least it's not visible on OS side).
|
||||
*/
|
||||
unsigned int count = 10;
|
||||
|
||||
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_SW_UPDATE);
|
||||
/* Give it some time to propagate */
|
||||
usleep_range(10, 50);
|
||||
while (pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & PWM_SW_UPDATE && --count)
|
||||
usleep_range(10, 20);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
|
||||
int duty_ns, int period_ns)
|
||||
static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
|
||||
int duty_ns, int period_ns)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
|
||||
unsigned long long on_time_div;
|
||||
unsigned long c = lpwm->info->clk_rate, base_unit_range;
|
||||
unsigned long long base_unit, freq = NSEC_PER_SEC;
|
||||
@ -111,8 +116,6 @@ static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
|
||||
do_div(on_time_div, period_ns);
|
||||
on_time_div = 255ULL - on_time_div;
|
||||
|
||||
pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
|
||||
|
||||
ctrl = pwm_lpss_read(pwm);
|
||||
ctrl &= ~PWM_ON_TIME_DIV_MASK;
|
||||
ctrl &= ~(base_unit_range << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT);
|
||||
@ -120,42 +123,33 @@ static int pwm_lpss_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
|
||||
ctrl |= (u32) base_unit << PWM_BASE_UNIT_SHIFT;
|
||||
ctrl |= on_time_div;
|
||||
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, ctrl);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* If the PWM is already enabled we need to notify the hardware
|
||||
* about the change by setting PWM_SW_UPDATE.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
|
||||
pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
|
||||
|
||||
pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
|
||||
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static int pwm_lpss_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
|
||||
static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
|
||||
struct pwm_state *state)
|
||||
{
|
||||
pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
|
||||
struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip);
|
||||
|
||||
if (state->enabled) {
|
||||
if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
|
||||
pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
|
||||
pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
|
||||
pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
|
||||
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_ENABLE);
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
|
||||
pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
|
||||
}
|
||||
} else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
|
||||
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
|
||||
pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Hardware must first see PWM_SW_UPDATE before the PWM can be
|
||||
* enabled.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
pwm_lpss_update(pwm);
|
||||
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_ENABLE);
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static void pwm_lpss_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
|
||||
{
|
||||
pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE);
|
||||
pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static const struct pwm_ops pwm_lpss_ops = {
|
||||
.config = pwm_lpss_config,
|
||||
.enable = pwm_lpss_enable,
|
||||
.disable = pwm_lpss_disable,
|
||||
.apply = pwm_lpss_apply,
|
||||
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user