On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 11:16:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 05:13:19PM +0530, Yash Shah wrote: [...] > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c [...] > > + writel(val, pwm->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCFG); > > + > > + writel(frac, pwm->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCMP0 + dev->hwpwm * SIZE_PWMCMP); > > + > > + val &= ~(1 << PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCFG_DEGLITCH); > > + writel(val, pwm->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCFG); > > + > > + pwm_sifive_get_state(chip, dev, state); > > Thierry: This changes the pwm_state. Is this how this should be done? Yes, I think that's fine. The PWM state should always reflect the current hardware state. If the configuration that we program does not reflect the state that was requested, that should be reflected in the PWM state. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
