[V15,1/4] pwm: driver for qualcomm ipq6018 pwm block

Driver for the PWM block in Qualcomm IPQ6018 line of SoCs. Based on
driver from downstream Codeaurora kernel tree. Removed support for older
(V1) variants because I have no access to that hardware.

Tested on IPQ6010 based hardware.

Co-developed-by: Baruch Siach <baruch.siach@siklu.com>
Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch.siach@siklu.com>
Signed-off-by: Devi Priya <quic_devipriy@quicinc.com>
---
V15:
  No change

V14:
  No change

V13:
  No change

V12:

  Fix the below clang warning for overflow check reported by kernel test robot
  drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c:122:11: warning: result of comparison of constant 16000000000
  with expression of type 'unsigned long' is always false [-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
>>            if (rate > 16ULL * GIGA)

v11:

Address comment from Uwe Kleine-König:

  Drop redundant registers field comments

  Fix period limit check in .apply

  Clarify the comment explaining skip of pre_div > pwm_div values

  Add explicit check for clock rate within limit

  Add comment explaining the selection of initial pre_div

  Use pwm_div division with remainder instead of separate diff calculation

  Round up duty_cycle calculation in .get_state

v10:

  Restore round up in pwm_div calculation; otherwise diff is always <=
  0, so only bingo match works

  Don't overwrite min_diff on every loop iteration

v9:

Address comment from Uwe Kleine-König:

  Use period_ns*rate in dividers calculation for better accuracy

  Round down pre_div and pwm_div

  Add a comment explaining why pwm_div can't underflow

  Add a comment explaining why pre_div > pwm_div end the search loop

  Drop 'CFG_' from register macros

  Rename to_ipq_pwm_chip() to ipq_pwm_from_chip()

  Change bare 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int'

  Clarify the comment on separate REG1 write for enable/disable
  Round up the period value in .get_state

  Use direct readl/writel so no need to check for regmap errors

v7:

  Change 'offset' to 'reg' for the tcsr offset (Rob)

  Drop clock name; there is only one clock (Bjorn)

  Simplify probe failure code path (Bjorn)

v6:

Address Uwe Kleine-König review comments:

  Drop IPQ_PWM_MAX_DEVICES

  Rely on assigned-clock-rates; drop IPQ_PWM_CLK_SRC_FREQ

  Simplify register offset calculation

  Calculate duty cycle more precisely

  Refuse to set inverted polarity

  Drop redundant IPQ_PWM_REG1_ENABLE bit clear

  Remove x1000 factor in pwm_div calculation, use rate directly, and round up

  Choose initial pre_div such that pwm_div < IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV

  Ensure pre_div <= pwm_div

  Rename close_ to best_

  Explain in comment why effective_div doesn't overflow

  Limit pwm_div to IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV - 1 to allow 100% duty cycle

  Disable clock only after pwmchip_remove()

  const pwm_ops

Other changes:

  Add missing linux/bitfield.h header include (kernel test robot)

  Adjust code for PWM device node under TCSR (Rob Herring)

v5:

  Use &tcsr_q6 syscon to access registers (Bjorn Andersson)
  
  Address Uwe Kleine-König review comments:

  Implement .get_state()

  Add IPQ_PWM_ prefix to local macros

  Use GENMASK/BIT/FIELD_PREP for register fields access

  Make type of config_div_and_duty() parameters consistent

  Derive IPQ_PWM_MIN_PERIOD_NS from IPQ_PWM_CLK_SRC_FREQ

  Integrate enable/disable into config_div_and_duty() to save register read,
  and reduce frequency glitch on update

  Use min() instead of min_t()

  Fix comment format

  Use dev_err_probe() to indicate probe step failure

  Add missing clk_disable_unprepare() in .remove

  Don't set .owner

v4:

  Use div64_u64() to fix link for 32-bit targets ((kernel test robot
  <lkp@intel.com>, Uwe Kleine-König)

v3:

  s/qcom,pwm-ipq6018/qcom,ipq6018-pwm/ (Rob Herring)

  Fix integer overflow on 32-bit targets (kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>)

v2:

Address Uwe Kleine-König review comments:

  Fix period calculation when out of range

  Don't set period larger than requested

  Remove PWM disable on configuration change

  Implement .apply instead of non-atomic .config/.enable/.disable

  Don't modify PWM on .request/.free

  Check pwm_div underflow

  Fix various code and comment formatting issues

Other changes:
  
  Use u64 divisor safe division

  Remove now empty .request/.free

 drivers/pwm/Kconfig   |  12 ++
 drivers/pwm/Makefile  |   1 +
 drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c | 282 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 295 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c

On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 09:35:47PM +0530, Devi Priya wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..5dbe46bb56d6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ipq.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2016-2017, 2020 The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/math64.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> +#include <linux/units.h>
> +
> +/* The frequency range supported is 1 Hz to clock rate */
> +#define IPQ_PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS	((u64)NSEC_PER_SEC)
> +
> +/*
> + * The max value specified for each field is based on the number of bits
> + * in the pwm control register for that field
> + */
> +#define IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV		0xFFFF
> +
> +/*
> + * Two 32-bit registers for each PWM: REG0, and REG1.
> + * Base offset for PWM #i is at 8 * #i.
> + */
> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG0			0
> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG0_PWM_DIV		GENMASK(15, 0)
> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG0_HI_DURATION	GENMASK(31, 16)
> +
> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG1			4
> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG1_PRE_DIV		GENMASK(15, 0)
> +/*
> + * Enable bit is set to enable output toggling in pwm device.
> + * Update bit is set to reflect the changed divider and high duration
> + * values in register.
> + */
> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG1_UPDATE		BIT(30)
> +#define IPQ_PWM_REG1_ENABLE		BIT(31)
> +
> +struct ipq_pwm_chip {
> +	struct pwm_chip chip;
> +	struct clk *clk;
> +	void __iomem *mem;
> +};
> +
> +static struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_pwm_from_chip(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> +{
> +	return container_of(chip, struct ipq_pwm_chip, chip);
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned int ipq_pwm_reg_read(struct pwm_device *pwm, unsigned int reg)
> +{
> +	struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_chip = ipq_pwm_from_chip(pwm->chip);
> +	unsigned int off = 8 * pwm->hwpwm + reg;
> +
> +	return readl(ipq_chip->mem + off);
> +}
> +
> +static void ipq_pwm_reg_write(struct pwm_device *pwm, unsigned int reg,
> +			      unsigned int val)
> +{
> +	struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_chip = ipq_pwm_from_chip(pwm->chip);
> +	unsigned int off = 8 * pwm->hwpwm + reg;
> +
> +	writel(val, ipq_chip->mem + off);
> +}
> +
> +static void config_div_and_duty(struct pwm_device *pwm, unsigned int pre_div,
> +				unsigned int pwm_div, unsigned long rate, u64 duty_ns,
> +				bool enable)
> +{
> +	unsigned long hi_dur;
> +	unsigned long val = 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * high duration = pwm duty * (pwm div + 1)
> +	 * pwm duty = duty_ns / period_ns
> +	 */
> +	hi_dur = div64_u64(duty_ns * rate, (pre_div + 1) * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> +
> +	val = FIELD_PREP(IPQ_PWM_REG0_HI_DURATION, hi_dur) |
> +		FIELD_PREP(IPQ_PWM_REG0_PWM_DIV, pwm_div);
> +	ipq_pwm_reg_write(pwm, IPQ_PWM_REG0, val);
> +
> +	val = FIELD_PREP(IPQ_PWM_REG1_PRE_DIV, pre_div);
> +	ipq_pwm_reg_write(pwm, IPQ_PWM_REG1, val);
> +
> +	/* PWM enable toggle needs a separate write to REG1 */
> +	val |= IPQ_PWM_REG1_UPDATE;
> +	if (enable)
> +		val |= IPQ_PWM_REG1_ENABLE;
> +	ipq_pwm_reg_write(pwm, IPQ_PWM_REG1, val);
> +}
> +
> +static int ipq_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +			 const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_chip = ipq_pwm_from_chip(chip);
> +	unsigned int pre_div, pwm_div, best_pre_div, best_pwm_div;
> +	unsigned long rate = clk_get_rate(ipq_chip->clk);
> +	u64 period_ns, duty_ns, period_rate;
> +	u64 min_diff;
> +
> +	if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (state->period < DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(NSEC_PER_SEC, rate))
> +		return -ERANGE;
> +
> +	period_ns = min(state->period, IPQ_PWM_MAX_PERIOD_NS);
> +	duty_ns = min(state->duty_cycle, period_ns);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * period_ns is 1G or less. As long as rate is less than 16 GHz,
> +	 * period_rate does not overflow. Make that explicit.
> +	 */
> +	if ((unsigned long long)rate > 16ULL * GIGA)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	period_rate = period_ns * rate;
> +	best_pre_div = IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV;
> +	best_pwm_div = IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV;
> +	/*
> +	 * We don't need to consider pre_div values smaller than
> +	 *
> +	 *                              period_rate
> +	 *  pre_div_min := ------------------------------------
> +	 *                 NSEC_PER_SEC * (IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV + 1)
> +	 *
> +	 * because pre_div = pre_div_min results in a better
> +	 * approximation.
> +	 */
> +	pre_div = div64_u64(period_rate,
> +			    (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * (IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV + 1));

Consider period_ns = 0x10000 and rate = NSEC_PER_SEC. Then we get
pre_div = 1 ...

> +	min_diff = period_rate;
> +
> +	for (; pre_div <= IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV; pre_div++) {
> +		u64 remainder;
> +
> +		pwm_div = div64_u64_rem(period_rate,
> +					(u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * (pre_div + 1), &remainder);
> +		/* pwm_div is unsigned; the check below catches underflow */
> +		pwm_div--;

... pwm_div then will be 0x7fff and remainder is 0. This is wrong, isn't
it? I think you lack a -1 in the assignment of pre_div above. And/or you
need to round up the division?

Having said that the loop here is quite heavy. I'd opt for restricing
pwm_div to 0xfffe (to get a finegrained domain for HI_DURATION) and then
the appropriate value for pre_div can be computed in a single division.
While being more coarse for the domain of periods, a simple algorithm is
worth quite a lot (for reviewers of your code and also for consumers
that benefit from a small runtime of .apply()) and you get a
fine-grained domain for duty_cycle. In my experience outweighs the
increased precision for the period.

> +		/*
> +		 * Swapping values for pre_div and pwm_div produces the same
> +		 * period length. So we can skip all settings with pre_div >
> +		 * pwm_div which results in bigger constraints for selecting
> +		 * the duty_cycle than with the two values swapped.
> +		 */
> +		if (pre_div > pwm_div)
> +			break;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Make sure we can do 100% duty cycle where
> +		 * hi_dur == pwm_div + 1
> +		 */
> +		if (pwm_div > IPQ_PWM_MAX_DIV - 1)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		if (remainder < min_diff) {
> +			best_pre_div = pre_div;
> +			best_pwm_div = pwm_div;
> +			min_diff = remainder;
> +
> +			if (min_diff == 0) /* bingo */
> +				break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	/* config divider values for the closest possible frequency */
> +	config_div_and_duty(pwm, best_pre_div, best_pwm_div,
> +			    rate, duty_ns, state->enabled);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int ipq_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +			     struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct ipq_pwm_chip *ipq_chip = ipq_pwm_from_chip(chip);
> +	unsigned long rate = clk_get_rate(ipq_chip->clk);
> +	unsigned int pre_div, pwm_div, hi_dur;
> +	u64 effective_div, hi_div;
> +	u32 reg0, reg1;
> +
> +	reg0 = ipq_pwm_reg_read(pwm, IPQ_PWM_REG0);
> +	reg1 = ipq_pwm_reg_read(pwm, IPQ_PWM_REG1);
> +
> +	state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> +	state->enabled = reg1 & IPQ_PWM_REG1_ENABLE;
> +
> +	pwm_div = FIELD_GET(IPQ_PWM_REG0_PWM_DIV, reg0);
> +	hi_dur = FIELD_GET(IPQ_PWM_REG0_HI_DURATION, reg0);
> +	pre_div = FIELD_GET(IPQ_PWM_REG1_PRE_DIV, reg1);
> +
> +	/* No overflow here, both pre_div and pwm_div <= 0xffff */
> +	effective_div = (u64)(pre_div + 1) * (pwm_div + 1);

This cast is not needed.

> +	state->period = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(effective_div * NSEC_PER_SEC, rate);
> +
> +	hi_div = hi_dur * (pre_div + 1);
> +	state->duty_cycle = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(hi_div * NSEC_PER_SEC, rate);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct pwm_ops ipq_pwm_ops = {
> +	.apply = ipq_pwm_apply,
> +	.get_state = ipq_pwm_get_state,
> +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,

With 384461abcab6 in next
(https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git/log/?h=for-next,
currently for-next~30), the .owner line should be dropped.
..ooOO(You claimed to have dropped that for v5 already in the changelog
above.  Hmm?!)

> +};
> +
> +static int ipq_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct ipq_pwm_chip *pwm;
> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	pwm = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pwm), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!pwm)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pwm);
> +
> +	pwm->mem = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> +	if (IS_ERR(pwm->mem))
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pwm->mem),
> +				"regs map failed");
> +
> +	pwm->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(pwm->clk))
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pwm->clk),
> +				"failed to get clock");
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pwm->clk);

devm_clk_get_enabled()

> +	if (ret)
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "clock enable failed");
> +
> +	pwm->chip.dev = dev;
> +	pwm->chip.ops = &ipq_pwm_ops;
> +	pwm->chip.npwm = 4;
> +
> +	ret = pwmchip_add(&pwm->chip);

devm_pwmchip_add()

> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "pwmchip_add() failed\n");
> +		clk_disable_unprepare(pwm->clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int ipq_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct ipq_pwm_chip *pwm = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> +	pwmchip_remove(&pwm->chip);
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(pwm->clk);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

With the above suggestions .remove can be dropped. If there is still a
reason to keep it in the next revision, please switch to .remove_new().

> +static const struct of_device_id pwm_ipq_dt_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,ipq6018-pwm", },
> +	{}
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pwm_ipq_dt_match);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver ipq_pwm_driver = {
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = "ipq-pwm",
> +		.of_match_table = pwm_ipq_dt_match,
> +	},
> +	.probe = ipq_pwm_probe,
> +	.remove = ipq_pwm_remove,
> +};
> +
> +module_platform_driver(ipq_pwm_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");

I don't oppose to this dual licensing, but I wonder what the motivation
is. Seeing that the copyright is assigned to the Linux Foundation, is
this related to Zephyr? (Which however uses an Apache license.)

Best regards
Uwe