[v4] riscv: pwm: sophgo: add pwm support for SG2044

[PATCH v4 2/3] pwm: sophgo: reorganize the code structure

Posted by Longbin Li 9 months, 2 weeks ago

As the driver logic can be used in both SG2042 and SG2044, it
will be better to reorganize the code structure.

Signed-off-by: Longbin Li <looong.bin@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@outlook.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
index ff4639d849ce..23a83843ba53 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
@@ -26,18 +26,6 @@
 #include <linux/pwm.h>
 #include <linux/reset.h>

-/*
- * Offset RegisterName
- * 0x0000 HLPERIOD0
- * 0x0004 PERIOD0
- * 0x0008 HLPERIOD1
- * 0x000C PERIOD1
- * 0x0010 HLPERIOD2
- * 0x0014 PERIOD2
- * 0x0018 HLPERIOD3
- * 0x001C PERIOD3
- * Four groups and every group is composed of HLPERIOD & PERIOD
- */
 #define SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 0)
 #define SG2042_PWM_PERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 4)

@@ -53,6 +41,10 @@ struct sg2042_pwm_ddata {
 	unsigned long clk_rate_hz;
 };

+struct sg2042_chip_data {
+	const struct pwm_ops ops;
+};
+
 /*
  * period_ticks: PERIOD
  * hlperiod_ticks: HLPERIOD
@@ -66,21 +58,13 @@ static void pwm_sg2042_config(struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata, unsigned int chan,
 	writel(hlperiod_ticks, base + SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan));
 }

-static int pwm_sg2042_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
-			    const struct pwm_state *state)
+static void pwm_set_dutycycle(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+			      const struct pwm_state *state)
 {
 	struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata = pwmchip_get_drvdata(chip);
 	u32 hlperiod_ticks;
 	u32 period_ticks;

-	if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
-		return -EINVAL;
-
-	if (!state->enabled) {
-		pwm_sg2042_config(ddata, pwm->hwpwm, 0, 0);
-		return 0;
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * Duration of High level (duty_cycle) = HLPERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
 	 * Duration of One Cycle (period) = PERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
@@ -92,6 +76,22 @@ static int pwm_sg2042_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 		pwm->hwpwm, period_ticks, hlperiod_ticks);

 	pwm_sg2042_config(ddata, pwm->hwpwm, period_ticks, hlperiod_ticks);
+}
+
+static int pwm_sg2042_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
+			    const struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+	struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata = pwmchip_get_drvdata(chip);
+
+	if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	if (!state->enabled) {
+		pwm_sg2042_config(ddata, pwm->hwpwm, 0, 0);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	pwm_set_dutycycle(chip, pwm, state);

 	return 0;
 }
@@ -123,13 +123,16 @@ static int pwm_sg2042_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	return 0;
 }

-static const struct pwm_ops pwm_sg2042_ops = {
-	.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
-	.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
+static const struct sg2042_chip_data sg2042_chip_data = {
+	.ops = {
+		.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
+		.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
+	}
 };

 static const struct of_device_id sg2042_pwm_ids[] = {
-	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm" },
+	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm",
+	  .data = &sg2042_chip_data },
 	{ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sg2042_pwm_ids);
@@ -137,12 +140,17 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sg2042_pwm_ids);
 static int pwm_sg2042_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+	const struct sg2042_chip_data *chip_data;
 	struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata;
 	struct reset_control *rst;
 	struct pwm_chip *chip;
 	struct clk *clk;
 	int ret;

+	chip_data = device_get_match_data(dev);
+	if (!chip_data)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
 	chip = devm_pwmchip_alloc(dev, SG2042_PWM_CHANNELNUM, sizeof(*ddata));
 	if (IS_ERR(chip))
 		return PTR_ERR(chip);
@@ -170,7 +178,7 @@ static int pwm_sg2042_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (IS_ERR(rst))
 		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(rst), "Failed to get reset\n");

-	chip->ops = &pwm_sg2042_ops;
+	chip->ops = &chip_data->ops;
 	chip->atomic = true;

 	ret = devm_pwmchip_add(dev, chip);
--
2.49.0

Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pwm: sophgo: reorganize the code structure

Posted by Uwe Kleine-König 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Hello,

On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:34:49AM +0800, Longbin Li wrote:
> As the driver logic can be used in both SG2042 and SG2044, it
> will be better to reorganize the code structure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Longbin Li <looong.bin@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@outlook.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> index ff4639d849ce..23a83843ba53 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> @@ -26,18 +26,6 @@
>  #include <linux/pwm.h>
>  #include <linux/reset.h>
> 
> -/*
> - * Offset RegisterName
> - * 0x0000 HLPERIOD0
> - * 0x0004 PERIOD0
> - * 0x0008 HLPERIOD1
> - * 0x000C PERIOD1
> - * 0x0010 HLPERIOD2
> - * 0x0014 PERIOD2
> - * 0x0018 HLPERIOD3
> - * 0x001C PERIOD3
> - * Four groups and every group is composed of HLPERIOD & PERIOD
> - */

This seems to be still correct? Why remove it then?

>  #define SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 0)
>  #define SG2042_PWM_PERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 4)
> 
> @@ -53,6 +41,10 @@ struct sg2042_pwm_ddata {
>  	unsigned long clk_rate_hz;
>  };
> 
> +struct sg2042_chip_data {
> +	const struct pwm_ops ops;
> +};
> +
>  /*
>   * period_ticks: PERIOD
>   * hlperiod_ticks: HLPERIOD
> @@ -66,21 +58,13 @@ static void pwm_sg2042_config(struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata, unsigned int chan,
>  	writel(hlperiod_ticks, base + SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan));
>  }
> 
> -static int pwm_sg2042_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> -			    const struct pwm_state *state)
> +static void pwm_set_dutycycle(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,

This is not a global pwm API function, so please stick to the pwm_sg2042
prefix.

> +			      const struct pwm_state *state)
>  {
>  	struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata = pwmchip_get_drvdata(chip);
>  	u32 hlperiod_ticks;
>  	u32 period_ticks;
> 
> -	if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
> -	if (!state->enabled) {
> -		pwm_sg2042_config(ddata, pwm->hwpwm, 0, 0);
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Duration of High level (duty_cycle) = HLPERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
>  	 * Duration of One Cycle (period) = PERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
> [...]
> @@ -123,13 +123,16 @@ static int pwm_sg2042_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> -static const struct pwm_ops pwm_sg2042_ops = {
> -	.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
> -	.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
> +static const struct sg2042_chip_data sg2042_chip_data = {
> +	.ops = {
> +		.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
> +		.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
> +	}
>  };
> 
>  static const struct of_device_id sg2042_pwm_ids[] = {
> -	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm" },
> +	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm",
> +	  .data = &sg2042_chip_data },

I would have expected that checkpatch doesn't like that. At least I
don't. Please make this

	{
		.compatible = ...;
		.data = ...;
	},

>  	{ }
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sg2042_pwm_ids);

Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pwm: sophgo: reorganize the code structure

Posted by Longbin Li 8 months, 2 weeks ago

On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 04:59:34PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:34:49AM +0800, Longbin Li wrote:
> > As the driver logic can be used in both SG2042 and SG2044, it
> > will be better to reorganize the code structure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Longbin Li <looong.bin@gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@outlook.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> > index ff4639d849ce..23a83843ba53 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> > @@ -26,18 +26,6 @@
> >  #include <linux/pwm.h>
> >  #include <linux/reset.h>
> > 
> > -/*
> > - * Offset RegisterName
> > - * 0x0000 HLPERIOD0
> > - * 0x0004 PERIOD0
> > - * 0x0008 HLPERIOD1
> > - * 0x000C PERIOD1
> > - * 0x0010 HLPERIOD2
> > - * 0x0014 PERIOD2
> > - * 0x0018 HLPERIOD3
> > - * 0x001C PERIOD3
> > - * Four groups and every group is composed of HLPERIOD & PERIOD
> > - */
> 
> This seems to be still correct? Why remove it then?
> 

The following "#define" has already expressd it. For clarity,
i will add it back.

> >  #define SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 0)
> >  #define SG2042_PWM_PERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 4)
> > 
> > @@ -53,6 +41,10 @@ struct sg2042_pwm_ddata {
> >  	unsigned long clk_rate_hz;
> >  };
> > 
> > +struct sg2042_chip_data {
> > +	const struct pwm_ops ops;
> > +};
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * period_ticks: PERIOD
> >   * hlperiod_ticks: HLPERIOD
> > @@ -66,21 +58,13 @@ static void pwm_sg2042_config(struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata, unsigned int chan,
> >  	writel(hlperiod_ticks, base + SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan));
> >  }
> > 
> > -static int pwm_sg2042_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > -			    const struct pwm_state *state)
> > +static void pwm_set_dutycycle(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> 
> This is not a global pwm API function, so please stick to the pwm_sg2042
> prefix.
> 

I will modify that, thanks.

> > +			      const struct pwm_state *state)
> >  {
> >  	struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata = pwmchip_get_drvdata(chip);
> >  	u32 hlperiod_ticks;
> >  	u32 period_ticks;
> > 
> > -	if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -
> > -	if (!state->enabled) {
> > -		pwm_sg2042_config(ddata, pwm->hwpwm, 0, 0);
> > -		return 0;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Duration of High level (duty_cycle) = HLPERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
> >  	 * Duration of One Cycle (period) = PERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
> > [...]
> > @@ -123,13 +123,16 @@ static int pwm_sg2042_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > 
> > -static const struct pwm_ops pwm_sg2042_ops = {
> > -	.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
> > -	.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
> > +static const struct sg2042_chip_data sg2042_chip_data = {
> > +	.ops = {
> > +		.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
> > +		.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
> > +	}
> >  };
> > 
> >  static const struct of_device_id sg2042_pwm_ids[] = {
> > -	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm" },
> > +	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm",
> > +	  .data = &sg2042_chip_data },
> 
> I would have expected that checkpatch doesn't like that. At least I
> don't. Please make this
> 
> 	{
> 		.compatible = ...;
> 		.data = ...;
> 	},
> 

I will check that, thanks.

> >  	{ }
> >  };
> >  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sg2042_pwm_ids);

[PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: pwm: sophgo: add pwm controller for SG2044
[PATCH v4 2/3] pwm: sophgo: reorganize the code structure
[PATCH v4 3/3] pwm: sophgo: add driver for SG2044