On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:36:06PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Saturday 12 March 2016 11:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >I can't see any reason why this would ever be preferable to just using > >the flat linear range (you certainly haven't articulated one, you're > >just stating it). This seems like you are bodging around a limited > >consumer driver, you should fix the consumer to cope with regulators > >with lots of voltages - PWM regulators aren't the only ones with high > >resolution steps. > The requirement is to have perfect linear steps interms of the period/pulse > time of PWM without loosing any voltage. > Continuous mode is pretty much near to what you said but here we are loosing > the perfect step as this divides the periods to 100 parts and then set > voltage. Could you be more specific about what the issue is? We've hopefully got errors of less than 1% in the values here... > If new mode is not accpetable then need to enhance the existing continuous > mode like before scaling for 100% of period, first look if we get the > perfect pulse time of of PWM period and if it is there then use this direct > instead of converting required voltage to 100% scale and then back > calculating duty time. That seems a lot better, what you're proposing is changing the ABI to fudge things for a client specific requirement where both the client requirement and the change you're proposing are specific to the current Linux implementation. That doesn't sound like a DT thing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
