* [REGRESSION] PWM vibrator does not probe with v6.9-rc1
@ 2024-03-28 16:27 Karel Balej
2024-03-29 10:35 ` [PATCH] pwm: Fix setting period with #pwm-cells = <1> and of_pwm_single_xlate() Uwe Kleine-König
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Karel Balej @ 2024-03-28 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Uwe Kleine-König; +Cc: regressions, linux-pwm, linux-kernel
Uwe,
I am working on bringing the mainline Linux to my old smartphone. Most
of the changes are not yet in-tree.
The phone has a PWM vibrator for which the corresponding input driver
(pwm-vibrator) is used. The driver used for the PWM is pwm-pxa (or
pxa25x-pwm).
The DT nodes look like this
[...]
pwm: pwm@1ac00 {
compatible = "marvell,pxa250-pwm";
reg = <0x1ac00 0x10>;
#pwm-cells = <1>;
clocks = <&apbc PXA1908_CLK_PWM3>;
};
[...]
vibrator {
compatible = "pwm-vibrator";
pwm-names = "enable";
pwms = <&pwm 100000>;
enable-gpios = <&gpio 20 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
pinctrl-names = "default";
pinctrl-0 = <&vibrator_pins>;
};
[...]
The vibrator worked fine with v6.8-rc6 but after I rebased to v6.9-rc1,
it no longer probes printing
[ +0.000118] pwm-vibrator vibrator: failed to apply initial PWM state: -22
to dmesg.
I have bisected the problem to 40ade0c2e794 ("pwm: Let the of_xlate
callbacks accept references without period").
Looking at the commit and adjacent history, I don't believe this problem
is caused by this still being an out-of-tree DT, nonetheless, if it
proves to be the case, then I apologize for false alarm.
Would you please take a look?
Thank you and kind regards,
K. B.
#regzbot introduced: 40ade0c2e794
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: Fix setting period with #pwm-cells = <1> and of_pwm_single_xlate()
2024-03-28 16:27 [REGRESSION] PWM vibrator does not probe with v6.9-rc1 Karel Balej
@ 2024-03-29 10:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2024-03-29 11:21 ` Karel Balej
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2024-03-29 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Karel Balej; +Cc: regressions, linux-kernel, linux-pwm
For drivers making use of of_pwm_single_xlate() (i.e. those that don't
pass a hwpwm index) and also don't pass flags, setting period was
wrongly skipped. This affects the pwm-pxa and ti-sn65dsi86 drivers.
Reported-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz>
Fixes: 40ade0c2e794 ("pwm: Let the of_xlate callbacks accept references without period")
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
drivers/pwm/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 54a62879fffa..ee3ef3f44bc5 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ of_pwm_single_xlate(struct pwm_chip *chip, const struct of_phandle_args *args)
if (IS_ERR(pwm))
return pwm;
- if (args->args_count > 1)
+ if (args->args_count > 0)
pwm->args.period = args->args[0];
pwm->args.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: Fix setting period with #pwm-cells = <1> and of_pwm_single_xlate()
2024-03-29 10:35 ` [PATCH] pwm: Fix setting period with #pwm-cells = <1> and of_pwm_single_xlate() Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2024-03-29 11:21 ` Karel Balej
2024-03-29 13:24 ` Uwe Kleine-König
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Karel Balej @ 2024-03-29 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Uwe Kleine-König; +Cc: regressions, linux-kernel, linux-pwm
Uwe Kleine-König, 2024-03-29T11:35:40+01:00:
> For drivers making use of of_pwm_single_xlate() (i.e. those that don't
> pass a hwpwm index) and also don't pass flags, setting period was
> wrongly skipped. This affects the pwm-pxa and ti-sn65dsi86 drivers.
>
> Reported-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz>
> Fixes: 40ade0c2e794 ("pwm: Let the of_xlate callbacks accept references without period")
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> index 54a62879fffa..ee3ef3f44bc5 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ of_pwm_single_xlate(struct pwm_chip *chip, const struct of_phandle_args *args)
> if (IS_ERR(pwm))
> return pwm;
>
> - if (args->args_count > 1)
> + if (args->args_count > 0)
> pwm->args.period = args->args[0];
>
> pwm->args.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> --
> 2.43.0
Thank you, this fixes the issue for me.
Tested-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz>
Just a nit: I am not sure if perhaps this being part of the report
thread is sufficient, but generally there should probably also be a
Closes: trailer for regzbot to automatically mark the report as resolved
among other reasons.
Best regards,
K. B.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: Fix setting period with #pwm-cells = <1> and of_pwm_single_xlate()
2024-03-29 11:21 ` Karel Balej
@ 2024-03-29 13:24 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2024-03-29 14:09 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2024-03-29 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Karel Balej; +Cc: regressions, linux-kernel, linux-pwm
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1927 bytes --]
Hello Karel,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Karel Balej wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König, 2024-03-29T11:35:40+01:00:
> > For drivers making use of of_pwm_single_xlate() (i.e. those that don't
> > pass a hwpwm index) and also don't pass flags, setting period was
> > wrongly skipped. This affects the pwm-pxa and ti-sn65dsi86 drivers.
> >
> > Reported-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz>
> > Fixes: 40ade0c2e794 ("pwm: Let the of_xlate callbacks accept references without period")
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/core.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > index 54a62879fffa..ee3ef3f44bc5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ of_pwm_single_xlate(struct pwm_chip *chip, const struct of_phandle_args *args)
> > if (IS_ERR(pwm))
> > return pwm;
> >
> > - if (args->args_count > 1)
> > + if (args->args_count > 0)
> > pwm->args.period = args->args[0];
> >
> > pwm->args.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> > --
> > 2.43.0
>
> Thank you, this fixes the issue for me.
>
> Tested-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz>
Great, thanks for your report and test.
> Just a nit: I am not sure if perhaps this being part of the report
> thread is sufficient, but generally there should probably also be a
> Closes: trailer for regzbot to automatically mark the report as resolved
> among other reasons.
I applied this patch and added
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/D05IVTPYH35N.2CLDG6LSILRSN@matfyz.cz
to the Signoff area which should be good enough to make the regzbot
recognize this as the matching fix.
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: Fix setting period with #pwm-cells = <1> and of_pwm_single_xlate()
2024-03-29 13:24 ` Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2024-03-29 14:09 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) @ 2024-03-29 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Uwe Kleine-König, Karel Balej; +Cc: regressions, linux-kernel, linux-pwm
On 29.03.24 14:24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Karel Balej wrote:
>> Just a nit: I am not sure if perhaps this being part of the report
>> thread is sufficient, but generally there should probably also be a
>> Closes: trailer for regzbot to automatically mark the report as resolved
>> among other reasons.
>
> I applied this patch and added
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/D05IVTPYH35N.2CLDG6LSILRSN@matfyz.cz
>
> to the Signoff area which should be good enough to make the regzbot
> recognize this as the matching fix.
Thx for that. FWIW, those tags are not only for regzbot: they are older,
as Linus wants them for good reasons[1]; that's why the docs also tell
people to place them[2] for many years now. But a lot of developer are
either not aware or ignore that.
Ciao, Thorsten
[1] for details, see:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjMmSZzMJ3Xnskdg4+GGz=5p5p+GSYyFBTh0f-DgvdBWg@mail.gmail.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgs38ZrfPvy=nOwVkVzjpM3VFU1zobP37Fwd_h9iAD5JQ@mail.gmail.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjxzafG-=J8oT30s7upn4RhBs6TX-uVFZ5rME+L5_DoJA@mail.gmail.com/
[2] see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
(http://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html) and
Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
(https://docs.kernel.org/process/5.Posting.html)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-29 14:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-03-28 16:27 [REGRESSION] PWM vibrator does not probe with v6.9-rc1 Karel Balej
2024-03-29 10:35 ` [PATCH] pwm: Fix setting period with #pwm-cells = <1> and of_pwm_single_xlate() Uwe Kleine-König
2024-03-29 11:21 ` Karel Balej
2024-03-29 13:24 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2024-03-29 14:09 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.