Hello Pascal, On 3/17/20 10:59 AM, Pascal Roeleven wrote: > When disabling, ensure the period write is complete before continuing. > This fixes an issue on some devices when the write isn't complete before > the panel is turned off but the clock gate is still on. > > Signed-off-by: Pascal Roeleven <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c > index a11d00f96..75250fd4c 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c > @@ -299,6 +299,10 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct > pwm_device *pwm, > sun4i_pwm_writel(sun4i_pwm, val, PWM_CH_PRD(pwm->hwpwm)); > next_period = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(cstate.period / 1000 + 1); > > + /* When disabling, make sure the period register is written first */ > + if (!state->enabled && cstate.enabled) > + sun4i_pwm_wait(next_period); > +
It is not visible from the context of this patch, but this call to sun4i_pwm_wait() ends up calling msleep() inside a spinlock, which isn't allowed. The spinlock should probably be converted to a mutex, considering that sun4i_pwm_apply() already sleeps and takes mutexes. Regards, Samuel > if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL) > ctrl &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_ACT_STATE, pwm->hwpwm); > else > @@ -320,6 +324,7 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct > pwm_device *pwm, > return 0; > > /* We need a full period to elapse before disabling the channel. */ > + next_period = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(cstate.period / 1000 + 1); > sun4i_pwm_wait(next_period); > > spin_lock(&sun4i_pwm->ctrl_lock); > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/linux-sunxi/f1d9a17e-df9e-dc12-603d-84e908a04b81%40sholland.org.
