pwm: Implement some checks for lowlevel drivers

There are some expectations which the callbacks provided by lowlevel
drivers should fulfill. Implement checks that help driver authors to get
these semantics right. As these have some overhead the checks can be
disabled using a Kconfig setting.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>

1 files changed, 128 insertions, 7 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 5a7f6598c05f..e9b9283cff28 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ static int pwm_device_request(struct pwm_device *pwm, const char *label)
 	if (pwm->chip->ops->get_state) {
 		pwm->chip->ops->get_state(pwm->chip, pwm, &pwm->state);
 		trace_pwm_get(pwm, &pwm->state);
+
+		if (IS_ENABLED(PWM_DEBUG))
+			pwm->last = pwm->state;
 	}
 
 	set_bit(PWMF_REQUESTED, &pwm->flags);
@@ -232,17 +235,28 @@ void *pwm_get_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_get_chip_data);
 
-static bool pwm_ops_check(const struct pwm_ops *ops)
+static bool pwm_ops_check(const struct pwm_chip *chip)
 {
+
+	const struct pwm_ops *ops = chip->ops;
+
 	/* driver supports legacy, non-atomic operation */
-	if (ops->config && ops->enable && ops->disable)
-		return true;
+	if (ops->config && ops->enable && ops->disable) {
+		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM_DEBUG))
+			dev_warn(chip->dev,
+				 "Driver needs updating to atomic API\n");
 
-	/* driver supports atomic operation */
-	if (ops->apply)
 		return true;
+	}
 
-	return false;
+	if (!ops->apply)
+		return false;
+
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM_DEBUG) && !ops->get_state)
+		dev_warn(chip->dev,
+			 "Please implement the .get_state() callback\n");
+
+	return true;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -266,7 +280,7 @@ int pwmchip_add_with_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	if (!chip || !chip->dev || !chip->ops || !chip->npwm)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (!pwm_ops_check(chip->ops))
+	if (!pwm_ops_check(chip))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	mutex_lock(&pwm_lock);
@@ -450,6 +464,107 @@ void pwm_free(struct pwm_device *pwm)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_free);
 
+void pwm_apply_state_debug(struct pwm_device *pwm,
+			   const struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+	struct pwm_state *last = &pwm->last;
+	struct pwm_chip *chip = pwm->chip;
+	struct pwm_state s1, s2;
+	int err;
+
+	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM_DEBUG))
+		return;
+
+	/* No reasonable diagnosis possible without .get_state() */
+	if (!chip->ops->get_state)
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * *state was just applied. Read out the hardware state and do some
+	 * checks.
+	 */
+
+	chip->ops->get_state(chip, pwm, &s1);
+	trace_pwm_get(pwm, &s1);
+
+	/*
+	 * The lowlevel driver either ignored .polarity (which is a bug) or as
+	 * best effort inverted .polarity and fixed .duty_cycle respectively.
+	 * Undo this inversion and fixup for further tests.
+	 */
+	if (s1.enabled && s1.polarity != state->polarity) {
+		s2.polarity = state->polarity;
+		s2.duty_cycle = s1.period - s1.duty_cycle;
+		s2.period = s1.period;
+		s2.enabled = s1.enabled;
+	} else {
+		s2 = s1;
+	}
+
+	if (s2.polarity != state->polarity &&
+	    state->duty_cycle < state->period)
+		dev_warn(chip->dev, ".apply ignored .polarity\n");
+
+	if (state->enabled &&
+	    last->polarity == state->polarity &&
+	    last->period > s2.period &&
+	    last->period <= state->period)
+		dev_warn(chip->dev,
+			 ".apply didn't pick the best available period (requested: %u, applied: %u, possible: %u)\n",
+			 state->period, s2.period, last->period);
+
+	if (state->enabled && state->period < s2.period)
+		dev_warn(chip->dev,
+			 ".apply is supposed to round down period (requested: %u, applied: %u)\n",
+			 state->period, s2.period);
+
+	if (state->enabled &&
+	    last->polarity == state->polarity &&
+	    last->period == s2.period &&
+	    last->duty_cycle > s2.duty_cycle &&
+	    last->duty_cycle <= state->duty_cycle)
+		dev_warn(chip->dev,
+			 ".apply didn't pick the best available duty cycle (requested: %u/%u, applied: %u/%u, possible: %u/%u)\n",
+			 state->duty_cycle, state->period,
+			 s2.duty_cycle, s2.period,
+			 last->duty_cycle, last->period);
+
+	if (state->enabled && state->duty_cycle < s2.duty_cycle)
+		dev_warn(chip->dev,
+			 ".apply is supposed to round down duty_cycle (requested: %u/%u, applied: %u/%u)\n",
+			 state->duty_cycle, state->period,
+			 s2.duty_cycle, s2.period);
+
+	if (!state->enabled && s2.enabled && s2.duty_cycle > 0)
+		dev_warn(chip->dev,
+			 "requested disabled, but yielded enabled with duty > 0");
+
+	/* reapply the state that the driver reported being configured. */
+	err = chip->ops->apply(chip, pwm, &s1);
+	if (err) {
+		*last = s1;
+		dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to reapply current setting\n");
+		return;
+	}
+
+	trace_pwm_apply(pwm, &s1);
+
+	chip->ops->get_state(chip, pwm, last);
+	trace_pwm_get(pwm, last);
+
+	/* reapplication of the current state should give an exact match */
+	if (s1.enabled != last->enabled ||
+	    s1.polarity != last->polarity ||
+	    (s1.enabled && s1.period != last->period) ||
+	    (s1.enabled && s1.duty_cycle != last->duty_cycle)) {
+		dev_err(chip->dev,
+			".apply is not idempotent (ena=%d pol=%d %u/%u) -> (ena=%d pol=%d %u/%u)\n",
+			s1.enabled, s1.polarity, s1.duty_cycle, s1.period,
+			last->enabled, last->polarity, last->duty_cycle,
+			last->period);
+	}
+}
+
 /**
  * pwm_apply_state() - atomically apply a new state to a PWM device
  * @pwm: PWM device
@@ -480,6 +595,12 @@ int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
 		trace_pwm_apply(pwm, state);
 
 		pwm->state = *state;
+
+		/*
+		 * only do this after pwm->state was applied as some
+		 * implementations of .get_state depend on this
+		 */
+		pwm_apply_state_debug(pwm, state);
 	} else {
 		/*
 		 * FIXME: restore the initial state in case of error.