pwm: New abstraction for PWM waveforms

Up to now the configuration of a PWM setting is described exclusively by
a struct pwm_state which contains information about period, duty_cycle,
polarity and if the PWM is enabled. (There is another member usage_power
which doesn't completely fit into pwm_state, I ignore it here for
simplicity.)

Instead of a polarity the new abstraction has a member duty_offset_ns
that defines when the rising edge happens after the period start. This
is more general, as with a pwm_state the rising edge can only happen at
the period's start or such that the falling edge is at the end of the
period (i.e. duty_offset_ns == 0 or duty_offset_ns == period_length_ns -
duty_length_ns).

A disabled PWM is modeled by .period_length_ns = 0. In my eyes this is a
nice usage of that otherwise unusable setting, as it doesn't define
anything about the future which matches the fact that consumers should
consider the state of the output as undefined and it's just there to say
"No further requirements about the output, you can save some power.".

Further I renamed period and duty_cycle to period_length_ns and
duty_length_ns. In the past there was confusion from time to time about
duty_cycle being measured in nanoseconds because people expected a
percentage of period instead. With "length_ns" as suffix the semantic
should be more obvious to people unfamiliar with the pwm subsystem.
period is renamed to period_length_ns for consistency.

The API for consumers doesn't change yet, but lowlevel drivers can
implement callbacks that work with pwm_waveforms instead of pwm_states.
A new thing about these callbacks is that the calculation of hardware
settings needed to implement a certain waveform is separated from
actually writing these settings. The motivation for that is that this
allows a consumer to query the hardware capabilities without actually
modifying the hardware state.

The rounding rules that are expected to be implemented in the
round_waveform_tohw() are: First pick the biggest possible period not
bigger than wf->period_length_ns. For that period pick the biggest
possible duty setting not bigger than wf->duty_length_ns. Third pick the
biggest possible offset not bigger than wf->duty_offset_ns. If the
requested period is too small for the hardware, it's expected that a
setting with the minimal period and duty_length_ns = duty_offset_ns = 0
is returned and this fact is signaled by a return value of 1.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>
Tested-by: Trevor Gamblin <tgamblin@baylibre.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/df0faa33bf9e7c9e2e5eab8d31bbf61e861bd401.1726819463.git.u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com
[ukleinek: Update pwm_check_rounding() to return bool instead of int.]
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@kernel.org>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions